SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Title II - Formula Grant Program 2009 Plan Update
March 2009
Prepared by: South Dakota Department of Corrections and the Council of Juvenile Services 3200 E. Hwy 34 Suite 8 Pierre, SD 57501
Prepared for: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs 800 Kay Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20531 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM...... 4
A STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM ...... 4 1). SOUTH DAKOTA’S JUVENILE CODE...... 4 2). RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES ...... 5 B SYSTEM FLOW ...... 23 1). TEMPORARY CUSTODY FLOW CHART...... 23 2). PETITION, ADJUDICATION, AND DISPOSITION FLOW CHART ...... 33
2 ANALYSIS OF JUVENILE CRIME PROBLEMS AND JUVENILE JUSTICE NEEDS ...... 51
A ANALYSIS OF JUVENILE CRIME PROBLEMS ...... 51 1). ARREST...... 51 2). JUVENILE COURT REFERRAL DATA...... 53 3). JUVENILE COURT CASES HANDLED ...... 54 4). JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN DETENTION AND JAILS...... 60 5). OTHER INFORMATION RELEVANT TO DELINQUENCY PREVENTION PROGRAMMING...... 63 B STATE PRIORITY JUVENILE JUSTICE NEEDS/PROBLEM STATEMENTS ...... 69
3 PLANS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIRST THREE CORE REQUIREMENTS OF THE JJDP ACT AND THE STATE’S PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE MONITORING...... 71
A PLAN FOR DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION OF STATUS OFFENDERS...... 71 1). DSO TREND ANALYSIS ...... 71 2). PLAN IMPLEMENTATION...... 73 3). STATE ADVISORY GROUP PARTICIPATION ...... 74 B PLAN FOR SEPARATION OF JUVENILES FROM ADULT OFFENDERS (SEPARATION)...... 74 1). SEPARATION VIOLATION TREND ANALYSIS ...... 74 2). PLAN IMPLEMENTATION...... 77 3). STATE ADVISORY GROUP PARTICIPATION ...... 78 4). STAFF CERTIFICATION TO WORK WITH JUVENILES IN COLLOCATED FACILITIES...... 78 C PLAN FOR REMOVAL OF JUVENILES FROM ADULT JAILS AND LOCKUPS (JAIL REMOVAL) ...... 78 1). REMOVAL TREND ANALYSIS...... 79 2). PLAN IMPLEMENTATION...... 81 3). STATE ADVISORY GROUP PARTICIPATION ...... 82 D PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE MONITORING – FIRST THREE CORE REQUIREMENTS...... 82 1). POLICIES AND PROCEDURES...... 82 2). MONITORING AUTHORITY...... 82 3). MONITORING TIMELINE...... 83 4). VIOLATION PROCEDURES ...... 83 5). BARRIERS AND STRATEGIES...... 84 6). DEFINITION OF TERMS...... 84 7). IDENTIFICATION OF MONITORING UNIVERSE...... 84 8). CLASSIFICATION OF MONITORING UNIVERSE ...... 85 9). INSPECTION OF FACILITIES ...... 85 10). DATA COLLECTION AND VERIFICATION...... 86
4 PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT (DMC) CORE REQUIREMENT ...... 87
2 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
A PHASE I: IDENTIFICATION...... 87 UPDATED DMC IDENTIFICATION SPREADSHEETS ...... 87 DMC DATA DISCUSSIONS...... 87 B PHASE II: ASSESSMENT/DIAGNOSIS...... 95 C PHASE III: INTERVENTION ...... 96 1). PROGRESS MADE IN FY 2008...... 96 2). DMC REDUCTION PLAN FOR FY 2009-2011...... 99 DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT ...... 100 D PHASE IV: EVALUATION...... 102 E PHASE V: MONITORING ...... 102
5 COORDINATION OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT AND DELINQUENCY PROGRAMS 103
A REDUCING PROBATION OFFICER CASELOADS ...... 103 B SHARING PUBLIC CHILD WELFARE RECORDS WITH JUVENILE COURTS...... 103 1. JUVENILE JUSTICE RECORDS COMMITTEE...... 103 2. CHILD WELFARE RECORDS LEGISLATION ...... 104 C ESTABLISHING POLICIES AND SYSTEMS TO INCORPORATE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES RECORDS INTO JUVENILE JUSTICE RECORDS...... 105
6 COLLECTING AND SHARING JUVENILE JUSTICE INFORMATION ...... 106
A EFFORTS FOR STATEWIDE INFORMATION SHARING...... 106 B BARRIERS TO INFORMATION SHARING ...... 106
7 PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS...... 108
COMPLIANCE MONITORING ...... 108 DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION OF STATUS OFFENDERS...... 109 DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT ...... 110 JAIL REMOVAL ...... 113 NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS ...... 114 SEPARATION...... 115 STATE ADVISORY GROUP ALLOCATION...... 116 JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ...... 118
8 SUBGRANT AWARD ASSURANCES...... 120
9 SAG MEMBERSHIP...... 121
10 STAFF OF THE JJDP FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAM ...... 122
A ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ...... 122 B GRANTS ADMINISTERED...... 122 C STAFFING PLAN ...... 123 D STAFF DUTIES...... 123
3 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
1 Description of System
A Structure and Function of Juvenile Justice System
1). South Dakota’s Juvenile Code
A reorganization of South Dakota’s laws that apply to the juvenile justice system was accomplished in 1991 with most statutes pertaining to juvenile proceedings being placed in Title 26. Four chapters contain most of the statutes that apply to the juvenile justice system.
Chapter 26-7A is entitled “Juvenile Court” and contains most of the juvenile court statutes which apply to abused and neglected youth, children in need of supervision, and delinquent youth.
Chapter 26-8A is entitled “Protection of Children from Abuse or Neglect” and includes statutes that apply to alleged or adjudicated abused and neglected youth. Chapter 26-8B is entitled “Children in Need of Supervision” and contains statutes that apply to status offenders. Chapter 26-8C is entitled “Delinquent Children” and contains the statutes that apply to children who commit acts that would be illegal if committed by an adult.
South Dakota’s juvenile justice system is based on the premise that all proceedings under SDCL 26-7A, 26-8A, 26-8B, and 26-8C shall be in the best interests of the child (SDCL 26-7A-5). Further protection for children is provided by SDCL 26-7A-6 which provides that these four chapters “shall be liberally construed in favor of the child, the child’s parents, and the state for the purposes of protecting the child from abuse, neglect by the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian and for the purposes of affording guidance, control and rehabilitation of any child in need of supervision or delinquent child.”
4 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Juvenile jurisdiction original proceedings rest with the circuit court and are civil in nature. Proceedings for juveniles who commit acts that are illegal for adults and that are exceptions to the delinquent definition above—such as motor vehicle, hunting, or fishing violations—are generally held in magistrate court. Juveniles appear in adult magistrate court for driving under the influence and open container violations.
There are cases where juveniles are prosecuted in adult court. SDCL 26-11-3.1 provides for trying in adult court any alleged delinquent child sixteen years of age or older against whom Class A, Class B, Class 1, or Class 2 felony charges have been filed. The child may then request a transfer hearing to determine if it is in the best interest of the public that the child be tried in circuit court as an adult. In such a transfer hearing, there is a rebuttable presumption that it is in the best interest of the public that any child, sixteen years of age or older, who is charged with a Class A, Class B, Class 1, or Class 2 felony, shall be tried as an adult.
SDCL 26-11-4 provides for the transfer of delinquency proceedings from juvenile to adult court. “At the transfer hearing, the court shall consider only whether it is contrary to the best interest of the child and of the public to retain jurisdiction over the child.”
2). Responsible Agencies
a) Law Enforcement
Generally, the responsibilities of law enforcement in the juvenile justice system includes the following:
λ Investigating alleged acts committed by juveniles which may constitute delinquent or child in need of supervision violations;
λ Taking juveniles into temporary custody with or without court;
5 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
λ Transporting juveniles to court hearings if they have been held in temporary custody pending court action;
λ Responding to child protection issues including investigations of abuse or neglect and enforcing protection orders.
County Sheriffs - While municipal police make the majority of juvenile arrests, sheriff departments are primarily responsible for providing temporary custody services and transportation.
Counties are responsible for funding of sheriff’s offices. In those counties with jails, sheriffs are generally responsible for the operation of the jail. Sheriffs may also have administrative responsibilities for the juvenile detention facility located in the county in which they serve.
Sheriff’s Offices account for approximately 16% of all juvenile arrests in South Dakota.
Municipal Police Departments – There are 101 municipal police forces in South Dakota. The common council of the municipality appoints Chiefs of Police. Police officers have responsibility to preserve order, make arrests and serve writs and notices. While municipalities are authorized to operate jails, most do not as counties are generally responsible for incarceration costs of individuals awaiting court action or serving a jail sentence. Police departments are responsible for approximately 84% of the juvenile arrests in South Dakota.
State Law Enforcement – The South Dakota Highway Patrol is a division of the South Dakota Department of Public Safety and “is entrusted with the enforcement of all laws, police regulations, and rules governing the operation of motor vehicles and motor carriers.” The Highway Patrol’s contact with juveniles normally occurs on the highways of South Dakota
6 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
and when the Highway Patrol is called upon for assistance by other law enforcement agencies.
The Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) - DCI is a division of the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office. DCI is responsible for criminal investigations, the operation of the State Forensic Laboratory, Law Enforcement, and 911 Training. The Identification Section maintains identification records and criminal history information for the state. The DCI is also responsible for maintaining the registry of sex offenders in South Dakota. The Criminal Intelligence Unit assists local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement by collecting, analyzing, and disseminating criminal intelligence information in order to support investigations. The Criminal Statistical Analysis Center within DCI serves as a clearinghouse for criminal justice statistical data.
Tribal and Federal Law Enforcement – There are nine federally recognized Native American Tribes in South Dakota (refer to the below map for a location of federally recognized tribes in South Dakota). Five of the Tribes provide their own law enforcement with the remaining tribes having their law enforcement agency operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The nine federally recognized tribes are listed below, those with BIA law enforcement marked with asterisks (*):
λ Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
λ Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
λ Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe *
λ Lower Brule Sioux Tribe *
λ Oglala Sioux Tribe (Pine Ridge)
λ Rosebud Sioux Tribe
λ Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Oyate
λ Standing Rock Sioux Tribe*
7 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
λ Yankton Sioux Tribe *
8 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
b) Juvenile Detention and Other Pretrial Programs
Counties are responsible for the costs of temporary custody through completion of the dispositional hearing. Counties are also responsible for the costs of detention or shelter if a youth is placed in these facilities as a disposition. Counties are authorized by state law to operate juvenile detention centers, enter into compacts with other counties for detention operation, and contract for detention or shelter care services. Counties also are responsible for maintaining courtroom and office space for court employees.
There are two regional detention centers in South Dakota: the Minnehaha County Juvenile Detention Center (Sioux Falls) and the Western South Dakota Juvenile Services Center (Rapid City). There are five additional county operated detention centers in South Dakota.
The facilities in Sioux Falls and Rapid City provide non-secure custody housing as well as secure detention. Licensed group care and residential treatment centers provide secure and non-secure custody services for counties on a fee for service basis.
With support from the Formula Grant s program, four holdover sites are operated to provide short-term non-secure custody services.
c) Courts
i Prosecution
State’s Attorney – The State’s Attorney, in the county in which the crime occurred, where the child resides, or where the child currently is present, is responsible for representing the state in all abuse and
9 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
neglect, children in need of supervision (CHINS), or delinquency proceedings. The State’s Attorney is an elected county official and must be licensed to practice as an attorney and counselor at law. State’s Attorneys are responsible for conducting preliminary juvenile investigations, determining whether a petition shall be filed, and representing the state in all juvenile proceedings.
Tribal and Federal Prosecution – The federal government has concurrent jurisdiction with tribal courts for felony prosecutions of crimes, committed by Native Americans, on the nine Native American reservations in South Dakota. The U.S. Attorney's Office prosecutes juveniles who commit the most serious crimes, juveniles who repeatedly commit felony crimes, and juveniles who need rehabilitative services.
ii Judiciary
The circuit courts are the general trial courts of the Unified Judicial System. These courts have original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases. They are the only courts that can try and determine criminal felony cases, civil cases that involve more than ten thousand dollars in damages, and appeals from magistrate court decisions. (Source: UJS website)
The circuit courts of South Dakota have exclusive civil jurisdiction over juvenile proceedings. The 66 counties in South Dakota form seven judicial circuits with thirty-eight circuit judges. Judges are elected by voters in their circuit in non-partisan elections every eight years. The Governor appoints judges to fill judicial vacancies of unexpired terms. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints one judge in each circuit to act as the presiding circuit judge to supervise
10 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
and administer the operations within their circuits. In addition to the judges, each circuit has a staff of court services officers trained to provide a variety of assistance to judges, offenders, and the community at large.
iii Court Services Officers
Court Service Officers, or CSOs, provide a myriad of services to clients. CSOs conduct pre-dispositional reports, pre-sentence investigations, and recommend to the sentencing Judge, plans for dealing with juvenile and adult offenders who may be placed on probation. In preparing these plans, the CSO takes into account public safety, victims, and community restoration, and identifies ways to increase an offender's skills so that they can be productive citizens. The officers also provide in-state probation supervision, interstate compact supervision, counseling, and/or community referral services to those placed on probation. As an alternative to committing youth to the Department of Corrections, CSOs work with private providers and various governmental agencies in order to provide intensive probation and access to community-based services. In 1996, the South Dakota Legislature enacted legislation that transferred dispositional authority
11 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
and fiscal resources for out-of-home placement from the Court System to the Department of Corrections. With the exception of the Human Services Center, inpatient alcohol and drug treatment, and detention, the Court can no longer directly place children in residential facilities as a disposition for a CHINS or delinquency adjudication. Additionally, informal adjustment diversion services may be offered to families as an alternative to adjudication and further penetration into the juvenile justice system. However, these services must be authorized by a state's attorney pursuant to SDCL 26-7A-10 or by a circuit judge in accordance with SDCL 26-7A-89.
Alleged delinquent children, CHINS, and their family members can become clients during the pre-adjudication phase, through a referral process to the Court Services Department, or by the state's attorney for diversion services. Whenever adjudications as delinquent children or children in need of supervision occur, the children and their families become clients until their services are terminated by the court. (Source: UJS website)
SDCL 26-8B-6 and 26-8C-7 provide the statutory basis for dispositional services provided to delinquent children and children in need of supervision. Juvenile probationers and their families receive services consisting of counseling, referrals to community-based services, and self-discipline assistance. As part of a program to assist juvenile offenders with respecting individuals and their communities, as well as enhance their self-esteem, court services officers work with the juvenile offenders to repay financial restitution to their victims and contribute community service hours of work to their communities through home-based services. (Source: UJS website)
12 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
d) Department of Corrections
The Department of Corrections, or DOC, provides out-of-home placement and aftercare services for children in need of supervision and delinquents committed to their care. To accommodate the needs of juveniles, the DOC operates five programs (two for females and three for males) at the State Treatment and Rehabilitation (STAR) Academy in Custer, and contracts with private group and residential treatment facilities both in South Dakota and out of state.
Once juveniles complete their program and are recommended for release, they are placed under the aftercare supervision of a Juvenile Corrections Agent. The child, the child’s parent or custodian, and the Agent sign an aftercare contract. Revocation of the child’s aftercare may take place through an administrative due process procedure that is utilized to determine if the child violated the conditions of the aftercare contract.
e) Private Residential Facilities
Private residential providers have a significant role in South Dakota’s juvenile justice system. Facilities are licensed by the Department of Social Services to provide shelter care, group care, psychiatric residential treatment, and intensive residential treatment. The Department of Corrections averages 180 youth per day in South Dakota private placement facilities. Some of these facilities also provide temporary custody for youth awaiting court action.
f) Community-based Services
i Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services
13 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
The South Dakota Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse is a state government agency that operates under the Department of Human Services. The mission of the Division is to reduce the prevalence of substance abuse disorders through prevention and treatment services. In order to meet this mission, the Division has established numerous programs throughout the state that focus on prevention and treatment for juveniles. These programs include the following:
South Dakota Community Mobilization Projects
Prevention Resource Centers
Diversion Programs
Safe and Drug Free Schools Programs
School Based Prevention Programming
Treatment Services (outpatient and inpatient)
The Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse also provides chemical dependency services to youth at the STAR Academy. All youth admitted to STAR Academy are given a full Chemical Dependency Treatment Needs Assessment or Update to clarify the need for, and appropriate level of programming. If the results show a need for CD services, the youth then receive Pre-Intensive Treatment and Intensive Outpatient Chemical Dependency Treatment consisting of chemical dependency education, group therapy, and individual counseling. Individuals who have completed treatment on site or at other facilities prior to arriving at STAR Academy may attend the Continuing Care program. This is followed with aftercare services. All students who received CD services at Star Academy, along with those who completed Level II.1 services in the community, are set up with aftercare services when they are released from Star Academy.
ii Mental Health Services
Division of Mental Health
14 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
The South Dakota Division of Mental Health is a state government agency operated under the Department of Human Services. Their mission is to ensure children and adults with mental health disorders in South Dakota communities have the opportunity to choose and receive effective services needed to promote recovery. There are eleven community mental health centers in South Dakota whose service areas cover the entire state. An array of services is provided across the age spectrum for persons with mental health needs. Specifically for children, there is a continuum of services to meet the needs of youth and families with complex needs resulting from a child’s serious emotional disturbance. These services are: - In-home individual therapy - In-home family education/support/therapy. - Out-of-Home Therapy. - Crisis Intervention. - Case Management. - Assessment and Evaluation. - Psychological Evaluation. - Group Therapy.
The Human Services Center
The Human Services Center is located in Yankton, in the southeastern tip of South Dakota. The Human Services Center is a state-of-the-art, licensed hospital providing inpatient psychiatric treatment services and chemical dependency treatment services.
The Adolescent Acute Psychiatric Program provides adolescents, ages 13 through 17, with inpatient psychiatric evaluation and treatment. The Long- Term Adolescent Treatment Program provides long-term psychiatric care for adolescents from 12 to 17 years of age. Intensive Treatment Unit (ITU) is a secure psychiatric facility for certain HSC patients and forensic court
15 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
evaluation treatment cases referred by circuit court. The Adolescent Chemical Dependency Program is accredited by the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse as a 20-bed inpatient alcohol/drug treatment facility.
iii Division of Developmental Disabilities
The Department of Human Services Division of Developmental Disabilities provides services to juveniles in the justice system through the Turtle Creek Program and community Adjustment Training Centers.
The Turtle Creek Youth Program
This program serves 40 behaviorally challenged, school-aged children by providing year-round educational and residential treatment programming to youth that are no younger than 10 years nor older than 21 years of age at time of admission, have a developmental disability, display behaviors that are dangerous or cause concern for the child or others, have unsuccessfully received treatment in a less-restrictive environment, and are eligible for ICF/MR funding under Title XIX.
Adjustment Training Centers
South Dakota contracts with 19 non-profit Adjustment Training Centers (ATC’s) that provide services to people with a diagnosis of a developmental disability. Three agencies specialize in providing services to youth, including individuals that have been involved in the juvenile justice system. Since some of these youth are not effectively served in a school setting, these agencies provide an alternative educational program that focuses on the goals identified in the youth’s Individual Education Plan (IEP).
16 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
g) Initiatives Impacting Juvenile Justice System
i Systems of Care Initiative
A System of Care is an organized network of agencies and community resources designed to support the needs of children, youth, and families with complex needs. State agencies are eager to implement a System of Care. Through the leadership of the Division of Mental Health and the Association of State Community Mental Health Centers, South Dakota has initiated the design and implementation of a systems of care approach committed to serving children and youth in their homes and communities. The following is a listing of observed strengths of the systems of care initiative in South Dakota:
All eleven community mental health centers (CMHCs), the Department of Corrections, the Department of Human Services and the Department of Social Services endorse the development of local Systems of Care for children with serious emotional disturbances and their families.
The Unified Judicial System (UJS) and community mental health center system have collaborated to improve the referral service delivery system for children who are referred by UJS to CMHCs.
A Memorandum of Understanding has been developed between South Dakota Councils of Mental Health Centers and the Division of Child Protection Services. It sets forth the understanding between the two organizations regarding the following: 1) procedures for transacting timely and standardized referrals for children’s mental health services from CPS to respective community mental health centers; 2) practices for minimizing “no shows” among referred children/families; and, 3) principles for assuring effective collaboration between the Council and CPS in serving the needs of referred children/families.
17 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
The Division of Mental Health is in the process of developing “The Center for Excellence” providing onsite training, coaching and technical assistance which will support the development of a comprehensive system of care and high fidelity wraparound.
Parents are represented on the state’s Mental Health Advisory Council.
A System of Care steering committee has been established to plan for the implementation of High Fidelity Wraparound. The following agencies are represented: The Council of Mental Health Centers, the Department of Social Services, the Department of Corrections, and Court Services. Education representatives have been invited and encouraged to attend. The steering committee is seeking family member representation.
The Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health in conjunction with Behavior Management Systems conducted a SEARCH conference in June 2008 in Rapid City. A variety of community service agencies came together to begin the process of identifying service areas in which the System of Care initiative can focus. From this conference, the Vucurevich Foundation funded a planning grant forum held in October, which focused on mental health and substance abuse. Three community committees were formed and are currently operating. The three committees include a service infrastructure committee, a service integration committee, and a service prevention committee. The Vucurevich Foundation is staffing these committees to help the communities work together in an effort to focus on mental health and substance abuse services, and to facilitate the Systems of Care process.
Other local Systems of Care initiatives are also underway throughout the state. A Systems of Care working committee has been formed in Pierre, the
18 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
community mental health centers have made a major internal agency change to their delivery of services by using a Systems of Care approach, and the Department of Corrections has hired a new community based Corrections Specialist to coordinate Systems of Care services to youth committed to the DOC.
In January 2009, the state of South Dakota applied for a $1.333 million dollar SAMHSA grant under the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children and Their Families / Child Mental Health Initiative. The Department of Human Services / Division of Mental Health is the lead agency and intends to implement Systems of Care statewide. This application is pending.
ii Consortium for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) Prevention Project
The consortium for fetal alcohol spectrum disorders prevention project will allow the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (DADA) to expand its current screening and intervention efforts into the WIC programs across the state. Funding through this subcontract with Northrop Grumman will allow the WIC programs to be trained in the screening and brief intervention protocols for pregnant women at risk of prenatal alcohol use. In addition, this program will allow DADA to integrate a comprehensive case management follow up system across the state which will work directly with women who are at a high risk or are using alcohol at the time of pregnancy. The benefits for the state are numerous including a better understanding of the risk factors related to prenatal alcohol use and the provision of intervention services for women who are identified. This process will greatly enhance the provision of specialized treatment services for pregnant women in SD.
19 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
DADA will work closely with the Department of Health to ensure that the project activities and procedures are occurring as agreed while working with the Center for Disabilities to carry out the project activities.
Target audience/Location
The population to be served by this initiative includes a portion of the 2,063 pregnant women who utilize the state WIC services across South Dakota on a monthly basis. Five WIC offices have been chosen to implement the initiative in the first option year. The pregnant women participants will be served by one of the five chosen sites across the state. These sites include Rapid City, Aberdeen, Pierre, Mobridge, and Sioux Falls.
Project Goal
The goal of the South Dakota initiative is to provide screening and brief intervention in the selected State WIC offices in order to reduce the number of pregnant women who use alcohol and/or have behavioral risk factors for alcohol use.
Project Objectives: What: Reduce the number of pregnant women who use alcohol and/or have behavioral risk factors for alcohol use. How Much: 20% (180) of pregnant women found to be using alcohol or at high risk of alcohol use. Who: Pregnant women participating in the WIC program in the identified regions that have been screened and identified as using alcohol or at high risk of alcohol use.
20 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
What: Reduce the number of pregnant women who use alcohol and/or have behavioral risk factors for alcohol use. How Much: 20% (180) of pregnant women found to be using alcohol or at high risk of alcohol use.
Who: Pregnant women participating in the WIC program in the identified regions who have been screened and identified as using alcohol or at high risk of alcohol use and have received the brief intervention.
Process objectives: What: Increase staff knowledge. How Much: 85% (64) of staff will increase knowledge.
What: Provide FASD 101 Education and review. How Much: 95% (72) of staff will receive FASD 101 education. What: Train on and review of the screening tool. How Much: 95% (72) of staff will receive training.
What: Train on and review of Brief Intervention. How Much: 95% (72) of staff will receive training.
What: Screen for alcohol use and behavioral risk factors for alcohol use at certification and re-certification. How Much: 100% (900) of women utilizing state WIC services. Who: Women screened for alcohol use and behavioral risk factors in the state WIC program in the identified regions.
21 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
What: Provide brief intervention to pregnant women who are at risk of prenatal alcohol use. How Much: 20% (180) of pregnant women utilizing state WIC services. Who: Pregnant women participating in the state WIC program in the identified regions who have been screened and identified as using alcohol or at a high risk of alcohol use. What: Provide repeat brief intervention to pregnant women who are at risk of prenatal alcohol use. How Much: 10% (90) of pregnant women found to be using alcohol or at risk of alcohol use. Who: Pregnant women participating in the state WIC program in the identified regions who have been screened and identified as using alcohol or at a high risk of alcohol use. What: Provide follow up services. How Much: 10% (90) of pregnant women found to be using alcohol and/or at risk of. Who: Pregnant women participating in the state WIC program in the identified regions who have been screened and identified as using alcohol and/or at risk of prenatal alcohol use.
Service Delivery System: The state of South Dakota plans to implement the screen and brief intervention initiative into the existing state WIC system. The screen and brief intervention will occur at certification, recertification, and at other follow-up appointments. The data from the screen will be evaluated as well as data from the referral and follow-up for those pregnant women who are identified as having issues with drinking while pregnant. The project plans to screen 100%
22 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
(900) of the pregnant women served by the designated project sites, while anticipating that about 10% (90) of those may qualify for the brief intervention and referral/follow-up. B System Flow
1). Temporary Custody Flow Chart
The following system flow chart depicts the initial stages of temporary custody, which begins at the time a youth is taken into custody by law enforcement. Temporary Custody Flowchart
Temporary Custody Law Enforcement
Intake Officer Release to Parent
Release to Parent Temporary Custody
Shelter Detention Jail
Temporary Custody Hearing
Release to Parent Continued Custody
Eletronic Monitoring Shelter
Home Detention Detention
23 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
a) Temporary Custody Definition
Temporary custody is defined as the physical and legal control of a child prior to final disposition. This includes the time the child is in the physical custody of law enforcement prior to release to parents, as well as physical custody of a child in detention or shelter care.
b) Temporary Custody by Law Enforcement
Under SDCL 26-7A-12, a child may be taken into temporary custody by a law enforcement officer without order of the court under the following conditions:
(1) If the child is subject to arrest under the provisions of § § 23A- 3-2 and 23A-3-4 (arrest); (2) If the child is abandoned or seriously endangered in the child's surroundings or is seriously endangering others and immediate removal of the child appears to be necessary for the child's protection or for the protection of others; (3) If there are reasonable grounds to believe the child has run away or escaped from the child's parents, guardian, or custodian; (4) If the officer reasonably believes that temporary custody is warranted because there exists an imminent danger to the child's life or safety and there is no time to apply for a court order and the child's parents, guardian, or custodian refuse an oral request for consent to the child's removal from their custody or the child's parents, guardian, or custodian are unavailable; or (5) If the child is under the influence of alcohol, inhalants, or a controlled drug or substance.
24 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Upon taking a child into temporary custody, the law enforcement officer must immediately notify an intake officer who will then conduct a hearing as required by 26-7A-13.1.
c) Intake Officer & Conditions Requiring Release
An intake officer is a judge of a circuit court or the court's designee who may not be a court services officer, law enforcement officer, or prosecuting attorney. Once notified that the child has been taken into temporary custody, the intake office immediately holds a hearing to determine if the child will be released or held in temporary custody. The following statute outlines the conditions of release or temporary custody for consideration by the intake officer for an alleged child in need of supervision:
26-8B-3. Circumstances requiring release -- Circumstances allowing detention -- Length of detention. An apparent or alleged child in need of supervision taken into temporary custody by a law enforcement officer prior to a temporary custody hearing shall be released to the child's parents, guardian, or custodian unless the parents, guardian, or custodian cannot be located or in the judgment of the intake officer are not suitable to receive the child, in which case the child shall be placed in shelter. A child may be placed in detention for no more than twenty-four hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and court holidays, if the intake officer finds that the parents, guardian, or custodian are not available or are not suitable to receive the child, and finds at least one of the following circumstances exists:
(1) The child has failed to comply with court services or a court- ordered program;
25 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
(2) The child is being held for another jurisdiction as a parole or probation violator, as a runaway, or as a person under court- ordered detention; (3) The child has a demonstrated propensity to run away from the child's home, from court-ordered placement outside of the child's home or from agencies charged with providing temporary care for the child; (4) The child is under court-ordered home detention in this jurisdiction; or (5) There are specific, articulated circumstances which justify the detention for the protection of the child from potentially immediate harm to the child or to others.
The shelter or detention authorized shall be the least restrictive alternative available. The child may be held in detention up to an additional twenty-four hours following the temporary custody hearing pending transfer to shelter or release.
If the child is accused of or has been found in violation of a valid court order, the child may be placed in detention for more than twenty-four hours, if a temporary custody hearing, pursuant to § 26-7A-14, is held within twenty-four hours of the child being placed in a detention facility, an interview is conducted with the child, and a written assessment of the child's immediate needs is provided at the temporary custody hearing. The interview and assessment may be conducted by law enforcement, states attorney, court services, or other public employee. The child may not be held in detention greater than seventy- two hours unless revocation proceedings have been initiated.
If the child is being held for another jurisdiction as a parole or probation violator, as a runaway, or as a person under court-ordered
26 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
detention, the child may be placed in detention for more than twenty- four hours and up to seven days if a temporary custody hearing, pursuant to § 26-7A-14, is held within twenty-four hours of the child being placed in a detention facility.
The following statute outlines the conditions of release or temporary custody for consideration by the intake officer for an alleged delinquent child:
26-8C-3. Release -- Placement in shelter -- Circumstances warranting detention. An apparent or alleged delinquent child taken into temporary custody by a law enforcement officer prior to a temporary custody hearing shall be released to the child's parents, guardian, or custodian unless the parents, guardian, or custodian cannot be located or in the judgment of the intake officer are not suitable to receive the child, in which case the child shall be placed in shelter. A child may not be placed in detention unless the intake officer finds that the parents, guardian, or custodian are not available or are not suitable to receive the child, and finds at least one of the following circumstances exists:
(1) The child is a fugitive from another jurisdiction; (2) The child is charged with a violation of § 22-22-7, a crime of violence under subdivision 22-1-2(9) or a serious property crime, which, if committed by an adult, would be a felony; (3) The child is already held in detention or on conditional release in connection with another delinquency proceeding; (4) The child has a demonstrable recent record of willful failures to appear for juvenile court proceedings; (5) The child has a demonstrable recent record of violent conduct;
27 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
(6) The child has a demonstrable recent record of adjudications for serious property offenses; (7) The child is under the influence of alcohol, inhalants, or a controlled drug or substance and detention is the least restrictive alternative in view of the gravity of the alleged offense and is necessary for the physical safety of the child, the public, and others; or (8) The child has failed to comply with court services or a court ordered program.
The shelter or detention authorized shall be the least restrictive alternative available.
d) Temporary Custody Hearing
If the intake officer does not release the child, a temporary custody hearing must be held within 24 hours for CHINS and 48 hours for delinquents, exclusive of holidays and weekends. At the temporary custody hearing, the court considers the evidence for needed continued temporary custody of the child, in keeping with the best interests of the child. The temporary custody hearing may be conducted telephonically, when necessary as determined by the court.
The following statute outlines the conditions of release or continued temporary custody for consideration at the temporary custody hearing by the judge for an alleged child in need of supervision:
26-7A-20. Release of child in need of supervision after temporary custody hearing -- Exceptions. If the child is an apparent, alleged, or adjudicated child in need of supervision, after the temporary custody hearing the court shall release the child from temporary custody to the
28 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
child's parents, guardian, or custodian, with or without restriction or condition or upon written promise of the parents, guardian, or custodian regarding care and supervision of the child, unless the court finds that the child should continue to be held in temporary custody for any of the following reasons:
(1) The child has failed to comply with court services or a court- ordered program; (2) The child is being held for another jurisdiction as a parole or probation violator, as a runaway, or as a child under other court-ordered detention; (3) The child has a demonstrated propensity to run away from the child's home, from court-ordered placement outside of the child's home, or from agencies charged with providing temporary care for the child; (4) The child is under court-ordered home detention in this jurisdiction; (5) There are specific, articulated circumstances which justify the detention for the protection of the child from potentially immediate harm to the child's self or to others; or (6) The child is a material witness, the detention is necessary because of implications of tampering with the child, and an affidavit so stating is filed with the court.
An apparent, alleged, or adjudicated child in need of supervision may not be placed in detention for longer than twenty-four hours after the temporary custody hearing unless the child has been accused of or has been found in violation of a valid court order.
29 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
The following statute outlines the conditions of release or continued temporary custody for consideration at temporary custody hearing by the judge for an alleged delinquent child.
26-7A-21. Release of delinquent child after temporary custody hearing -- Exceptions. If the child is an apparent, alleged, or adjudicated delinquent child, after the temporary custody hearing the court shall release the child from temporary custody to the child's parents, guardian, or custodian, with or without restriction or condition or upon written promise of the child's parents, guardian, or custodian regarding the custody and supervision of the child and the subsequent appearance of the child in court at a time, date, and place to be determined by the court, unless the court finds that the child should continue to be held in temporary custody of court services for any of the following reasons:
(1) The child is a fugitive from another jurisdiction; (2) The child is charged with a violation of § 22-22-7, a crime of violence under subdivision 22-1-2(9) or a property crime, which, if committed by an adult, would be a felony; (3) The child is already held in detention or on conditional release in connection with another delinquency proceeding; (4) The child has a demonstrable recent record of willful failures to appear at juvenile court proceedings; (5) The child has a demonstrable recent record of violent conduct; (6) The child has a demonstrable recent record of adjudications for serious property offenses; (7) The child is still under the influence of alcohol, inhalants, or a controlled drug or substance; or (8) The child has failed to comply with court services or a court ordered program.
30 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
e) Temporary Custody Options
Three options exist for holding juveniles on a temporary custody basis. First, juveniles may be held in shelter facilities, which are physically unrestricting homes or facilities for the temporary care of a child. Second, juvenile detention centers hold delinquent children and children in need of supervision under conditions and limitations outlined in the previous section of this document. Third, adult jails may be used as options for temporary custody where the following restrictions are not violated.
λ Abused & Neglected Child No apparent, alleged, or adjudicated abused or neglected child may be securely detained at any time in a jail, lockup, or in any type of detention or temporary care facility containing adult prisoners.
λ Child in Need of Supervision An apparent, alleged, or adjudicated child in need of supervision may not be securely detained in a jail, lockup, or in any type of detention or temporary care facility containing adult prisoners except for approved collocated detention centers as defined in § 26-7A-1 and as authorized in § § 26-8B-3, 26-8B-6, and 26-7A-20.
λ Delinquents An apparent or alleged delinquent child may be held in an adult lockup or jail for up to six hours for purposes of identification, processing, interrogation, and transfer to juvenile facility, or release to parents if the child is sight and sound separated from adult prisoners.
λ Exceptions In any area not designated as a metropolitan statistical area by the United States Bureau of Census, an apparent or alleged delinquent
31 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
child may be held in an adult lockup or jail for up to forty-eight hours. This is excluding holidays and weekends or until the temporary custody hearing, whichever is earlier, if the facility has been certified by the Department of Corrections as providing sight and sound separation of juveniles from adults and if no suitable juvenile facility is available.
λ Children Transferred to Adult Court A child who has been transferred to adult court pursuant to § 26-11-4 or a child who is being tried in circuit court as an adult pursuant to § 26-11-3.1 may be held in an adult lockup or jail if physically separated from adult prisoners. A child who has attained the age of majority who is under the continuing jurisdiction of the court may be held in an adult jail or lockup.
A child under the age of eighteen years who has been transferred to adult court pursuant to § 26-11-3.1 or 26-11-4 and who has been convicted of a felony as an adult may be held in an adult jail or lockup.
32 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
2). Petition, Adjudication, and Disposition Flow Chart
The following system flow chart depicts petition, adjudication and disposition stages of the juvenile justice system.
Petition, Adjudication and Disposition Flowchart
Report to State's Attorney
Petition Filed Referral to No Action Diversion Program
Advisory Hearing
Adjudicatory Hearing
Adjudicated Not Adjudicated
Dispositional Hearing
Human Service Center DOC Fines & Costs Detention Alt Ed Program Probation
Placement Intensive Probation Community Services
Aftercare
Aftercare Discharge Revocation
a) Report to States Attorney
Law enforcement is required to file a report with the State’s Attorney whenever a child is taken into temporary custody. Law enforcement or other persons may make a report to the State’s Attorney if it appears that the child may be under the purview of the abuse and neglect, child in need of supervision, or delinquent statutes.
33 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
b) Investigation by States Attorney
When a state's attorney is informed by a law enforcement officer or any other person that a child is, or appears to be, within the purview of this chapter and chapter 26-8A, 26-8B, or 26-8C, the state's attorney makes a preliminary investigation to determine whether further action should be taken. Based on the preliminary investigation, the state's attorney may take the following actions:
(1) Decide that no further action is required; (2) If the report relates to an apparent abused or neglected child and if additional information is required, refer the matter to the Department of Social Services for further investigation and recommendations; (3) If the report relates to an apparent child in need of supervision or an apparent delinquent child, refer the matter to a court services officer for any informal adjustment to the supervision of the court that is practicable without a petition or refer the matter to a court-approved juvenile diversion program for any informal action outside the court system that is practicable without the filing of a petition; or (4) File a petition to commence appropriate proceedings.
c) Informal Adjustment/Diversion Program
Informal adjustment is an alternative to adjudication and provides the alleged child in need of supervision, or alleged delinquent youth, the opportunity to follow a written plan under the supervision of a Court Services Officer. If the plan is completed, no petition will be filed.
34 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
However, failure to complete the conditions of the informal adjustment may lead to a petition being filed.
A diversion program is a court-approved program generally operated by a local private provider. Diversion programs focus on educating the child about the impact of their behaviors. Law related education and teen court programs are examples of diversion programs. Many diversion programs are offense specific, such as alcohol resistance programs, shoplifter programs, and vandalism programs.
d) Petition Filed
A state's attorney may file with the clerk of courts a written petition alleging a child, located or residing in the county, to be an abused or neglected child, a child in need of supervision, or a delinquent child, as defined by this chapter or chapter 26-8A, 26-8B, or 26-8C. The petition will include the following:
(1) The child's name, date of birth, and residence; (2) The names and residences of the child's parents, guardian, or custodian, or, if not known, of the child's nearest known relatives; (3) A statement of the facts that bring the child within the court's jurisdiction; (4) A request that the court adjudicate the child to be an abused or neglected child, a child in need of supervision or a delinquent child, according to applicable statutory definitions, and that appropriate proceedings be conducted regarding adjudication and disposition; and (5) A statement as to whether or not the Indian Child Welfare Act appears to be applicable.
35 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
(6) Two or more children having one or more common parent, guardian, or custodian and a common home environment may be included in the same petition. (7) If the petition alleges a child to be an abused or neglected child, the petition will recite that the action is brought by the state on behalf of the South Dakota Department of Social Services. Petitions filed regarding an alleged child in need of supervision or a delinquent child will be filed on behalf of the state. (8) Affidavits of social workers of the Department of Social Services, law enforcement officers, or court services officers may be incorporated by reference as part of the petition. (9) The child's parents, guardian, or custodian, as applicable, will be included as named respondents in the petition. (10) The petition may be made upon information and belief. If a party other than a state’s attorney signs the petition, the petition will be verified.
e) Indian Child Welfare Act
The federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requires state prosecutors, courts, and governmental agencies to follow specific procedures when dealing with Native American children in abuse and neglect and status offender proceedings. In South Dakota juvenile justice system, the ICWA applies to alleged and adjudicated CHINS.
States Attorneys are required to provide notice to Tribes when Native American children are facing CHINS proceedings. The Tribe is provided that opportunity to have the case transferred to Tribal Court or to participate in the state proceedings. Placement preferences for CHINS covered by ICWA are also prescribed.
36 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
f) Advisory Hearing
The advisory hearing is the initial hearing conducted by the court to inform the child and the child's parents, guardian, custodian, or other interested parties of their statutory and constitutional rights.
On appearance of the parties pursuant to summons or at any adjournment or continuance of an appearance, the court conducts an advisory hearing before the adjudicatory hearing on the petition, as follows:
(1) The court will first: (a) Ascertain the need for any joiner or deletion of parties, determine true names and addresses of parties and their relationships to the child, and determine the true name, date and place of birth, address, and custodial status of the child; (b) Advise the parties of the nature of the proceedings, the allegations contained in the petition, the burden of proof of the state and the constitutional and statutory rights of the parties; and (c) Advise the parties of their rights to be represented by attorneys and requirements for court-appointed attorney, if appropriate, and, if requested by any party or if required by the court, the court may adjourn and continue the advisory hearing to a time, date, and place set by the court to afford opportunity for parties to consult with their attorneys; and (2) The court will then receive the answer, response, denial, or admission of the parties and, if appropriate, of the child as follows: (a) If the petition alleges the child to be abused or neglected, parents, guardian, or custodian of the child may admit the allegations contained in the petition and the court may accept
37 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
the admissions if the court is satisfied that there is a factual basis for them; (b) If the petition alleges a child to be in need of supervision, parents, guardian, or custodian of the child and the child may admit the allegations contained in the petition and the court may accept the admissions if the court is satisfied that there is a factual basis for them; (c) If the petition alleges the child to be delinquent, the child may admit the allegations contained in the petition and the court may accept the admission if the court is satisfied that there is a factual basis for them.
If all necessary parties admit the allegations contained in the petition and the court accepts the admissions, the court may find, conclude, and make a decision as to the adjudication of the child under the applicable provisions of chapter 26-8A, 26-8B, or 26-8C. If all parties concur, the court may then proceed with the dispositional phase of the proceedings without conducting a formal adjudicatory hearing on the petition. However, at the request of any party or if required by the court, the court will set a later time and date for the dispositional hearing. The court will then determine interim dispositional arrangements concerning the child and the parties.
If the petition is not admitted by all necessary parties, including the child, or if the petition is denied by any necessary party or the child, the court will proceed with the adjudicatory hearing on the petition or schedule the adjudicatory hearing for a later time and date.
If the advisory hearing is adjourned and continued or if the advisory hearing is completed and the adjudicatory hearing on the petition is scheduled for a later time and date, the court will make an interim order regarding temporary custody of the child as determined by the court.
38 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
g) Adjudicatory Hearing
Following an advisory hearing on a petition, the court conducts an adjudicatory hearing. The court considers whether the allegations of the petition are supported by clear and convincing evidence concerning an alleged abused or neglected child or whether the allegations of the petition are supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt concerning an alleged child in need of supervision or an alleged delinquent child. This is comparable to the trial for an adult.
Adjudicatory hearings are conducted in accordance with rules of civil procedure. If the court finds that 1) the allegations of the petition or amended petition are not supported by clear and convincing evidence in cases concerning an alleged abused or neglected child; or 2) are not supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in cases concerning an alleged child in need of supervision or an alleged delinquent child, the court will then enter a final order accordingly and the action will be terminated. In the case of an alleged, abused, or neglected child, the court will enter findings and conclusions in addition to the final order. On termination of the action, the child, the child's parents, guardian, or custodian and other parties respondent will be released from any restriction or temporary order previously issued by the court and from the jurisdiction of the court. The final order terminating the action is an appealable order of the court by the state or by any alleged abused or neglected child or any party respondent not in agreement with the nonadjudication of the alleged abused or neglected child and resulting termination of the action.
If the court finds the allegations of the petition are supported by clear and convincing evidence, in cases concerning an alleged abused or neglected child, or are supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, in cases
39 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
concerning an alleged child in need of supervision or an alleged delinquent child, the court adjudicates the child accordingly and issues findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order of adjudication stating the child to be an abused or neglected child as defined in chapter 26-8A, a child in need of supervision as defined in chapter 26-8B, or a delinquent child as defined in chapter 26-8C. The order of adjudication is an intermediate order and is subject to intermediate appeal with the permission of the court according to the rules of procedure governing civil appeals.
The court then proceeds with the dispositional phase of the proceedings and issues an order setting the time, date, and place of the initial dispositional hearing and prescribing notice of the hearing. However, the court may proceed immediately with the initial dispositional hearing with the consent of the state, the child and the child's parents, guardian, or custodian or other parties who are respondents in the action.
On completion of the adjudicatory hearing resulting in adjudication of the child, the court may issue an interim dispositional decree governing custody, placement, care, shelter, or detention of the child as determined by the court pending the initial dispositional hearing and any continuance of it.
h) Dispositional Hearing
The dispositional hearing is a hearing after adjudication at which the court makes an interim or final decision in the case. This is comparable to the sentencing hearing for an adult. Dispositional hearings are tried to the court and are conducted and designed to inform the court fully of the exact status of the child and to ascertain the history, environment, and past and present physical, mental, and moral condition of the child and of the child's parents, guardian, or custodian.
40 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
After adjudication of a child as an abused or neglected child, a child in need of supervision, or a delinquent child and before final disposition of the case, the court may require the following examinations, investigations, and reports of them:
(1) The court may order the child's parents, guardian, custodian, any other party respondent, or any relative of the child who might be considered as a potential caretaker of the child on disposition to submit to psychological, psychiatric or medical examination and evaluation by a qualified mental health professional or physician and submit the report to the court. The court may issue an order on the motion of the state, the child, any interested party, or on the court's own motion. The order directing the examination and evaluation will state the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and evaluation to be made and the person or persons by whom it is to be made; and (2) The court may order home study investigations and reports of the investigations submitted to the court concerning the child's parents, guardian, custodian, any other party respondent, or relative of the child who might be a potential caretaker of the child on disposition. The order for a home study investigation and a report of the investigation will generally state the conditions and scope of the investigation considered necessary or appropriate by the court under the circumstances.
At the dispositional hearings the court considers evidence regarding proper disposition of the child best serving the interests of the child with due regard to the rights and interests of the child's parents, guardian, custodian, other parties respondent, the public, and the state. Dispositional evidence may include social study reports, mental and medical examination and
41 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
evaluation reports, home study investigation reports, and any other evidence related to appropriate disposition of the child.
Following the dispositional hearing, the court may issue an interim decree of disposition. During the dispositional phase, the court balances the rights and interests of the child and the respective parties, including the public and the state.
On completion of the final dispositional hearing, the court issues findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a final decree of disposition. The decree will be the final order of the court for the purpose of an appeal by any party according to the rules of procedure governing civil appeals.
i) Dispositional Options CHINS
If a child has been adjudicated as a child in need of supervision, the court enters a decree of disposition according to the least restrictive alternative available in keeping with the best interests of the child. The decree will contain one or more of the following alternatives:
(1) The court may place the child on probation or under protective supervision in the custody of one or both parents, guardian, custodian, relative, or another suitable person under conditions imposed by the court; (2) The court may require as a condition of probation that the child report for assignment to a supervised work program, provided the child is not placed in a detention facility and is not deprived of the schooling that is appropriate to the child's age, needs, and specific rehabilitative goals. The supervised work program shall be of a constructive nature designed to promote rehabilitation, shall be appropriate to the age level and physical ability of the child, and
42 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
shall be combined with counseling by a court services officer or other guidance personnel. The supervised work program assignment shall be made for a period of time consistent with the child's best interests, but may not exceed ninety days; (3) If the court finds that the child has violated a valid court order, the court may place the child in a detention facility for not more than ninety days, which may be in addition to any period of temporary custody, for purposes of disposition if: (a) The child is not deprived of the schooling that is appropriate for the child's age, needs, and specific rehabilitative goals; (b) The child had a due process hearing before the order was issued; and (c) A plan of disposition from a court services officer is provided to the court; (4) The court may require the child to pay for any damage done to property or for medical expenses under conditions set by the court if payment can be enforced without serious hardship or injustice to the child; (5) The court may commit the child to the Department of Corrections for placement in a juvenile correctional facility, foster home, group home, group care center, or residential treatment center pursuant to chapter 26-11A. Prior to placement in a juvenile correctional facility, an interagency team comprised of representatives from the Department of Human Services, Department of Social Services, Department of Education, the Department of Corrections, and the Unified Judicial System shall make a written finding that placement at a Department of Corrections facility is the least restrictive placement commensurate with the best interests of the child. Subsequent placement in any other Department of Corrections facility may be authorized without an interagency review;
43 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
(6) The court may place a child in an alternative educational program; (7) The court may order the child to be examined and treated at the Human Services Center; (8) The court may impose a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars; (9) The court may order the suspension or revocation of the child's driving privilege or restrict the privilege in such manner as the court sees fit or as required by § 32-12-52.4, including requiring that financial responsibility be proved and maintained; (10) The court may assess or charge the same costs and fees as permitted by §§ 16-2-41, 23-3- 52, 23A-27-26, and 23A-27-27 against the child, parent, guardian, custodian, or other party responsible for the child.
No adjudicated child in need of supervision may be incarcerated in a detention facility except as provided in subdivision (3) or (5) of this section.
j) Dispositional Options Delinquents
If a child has been adjudicated as a delinquent child, the court then enters a decree of disposition according to the least restrictive alternative available, in keeping with the best interests of the child. The decree will contain one or more of the following alternatives:
(1) The court may make any one or more of the dispositions in § 26- 8B-6, except that a delinquent child may be incarcerated in a detention facility established pursuant to provisions of chapter 26- 7A for not more than ninety days, which may be in addition to any period of temporary custody; (2) The court may impose a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars; (3) The court may place the child on probation under the supervision of a court services officer or another designated individual. The
44 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
child may be required as a condition of probation to report for assignment to a supervised work program, provided the child is not deprived of the schooling that is appropriate for the child's age, needs, and specific rehabilitative goals. The supervised work program shall be of a constructive nature designed to promote rehabilitation, appropriate to the age level and physical ability of the child, and shall be combined with counseling by the court services officer or other guidance personnel. The supervised work program assignment shall be made for a period of time consistent with the child's best interests, but for not more than ninety days; (4) The court may place the child at the Human Services Center for examination and treatment; (5) The court may commit the child to the Department of Corrections; (6) The court may place the child in a detention facility for not more than ninety days, which may be in addition to any period of temporary custody; (7) The court may place the child in an alternative educational program; (8) The court may order the suspension or revocation of the child's driving privilege or restrict the privilege in such manner as it sees fit, including requiring that financial responsibility be proved and maintained; (9) The court may assess or charge costs and fees permitted by §§ 16- 2-41, 23-3-52, 23A-27- 26, and 23A-27-27 against the child, parent, guardian, custodian, or other party responsible for the child.
k) Other Juvenile Court Provisions
Confidentiality Court and law enforcement records of children are confidential but may be released to agencies having a legitimate need for the
45 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
information as authorized by the court. Juvenile court proceedings are closed to public and media unless opened by the court or unless it involves a crime of violence. Victims of alleged delinquents may attend the hearings for the alleged delinquent.
Rights Children, parents, and guardians or custodians subject to abuse and neglect, child in need of supervision, or delinquent proceedings have the right to be represented by an attorney and the court will appoint an attorney if the party is without the means to pay for representations. Respondents have the rights to receive notice of hearings, a motion for a new rehearing and if the motion is denied, appeal under the appellate procedure, testify and present evidence, and question witnesses and confront evidence.
Attendance at Hearings Respondents are provided notice of hearings and summons to appear. Failure to appear or produce the child at hearings without good cause may be grounds for civil contempt of court.
Parental Support The child's parents' duty to support the child continues if the child is placed in the custodial care of the Department of Social Services or another department or agency of the state. The costs of custodial care for a child and related fees are due and payable by the child's parents on demand by the Department of Social Services or other custodial department or agency of the state or by the county.
Order of Protection The court may make an order of protection in assistance of, or as a condition of, any decree of disposition authorized by this chapter or
46 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
chapter 26-8A, 26-8B, or 26-8C. The order of protection may set forth reasonable conditions of behavior to be observed for a specified period by the child's parents, guardian, custodian, or any other person who is a party to such proceedings. The order of protection may require any concerned person or party: (1) To stay away from a child or the child's home; (2) To permit a parent or other person to visit a child at stated periods and places, with or without supervision; (3) To abstain from offensive conduct against a child or the child's parents, guardian, custodian, or any other person having custody or temporary care of the child; (4) To give proper attention to the care, maintenance, and supervision of the child, and the child's home; (5) To cooperate in good faith with the Department of Social Services, court services, or any other agency which has been given custody or temporary custody of a child, which is providing protective supervision or probation supervision of a child pursuant to court order, or to which the child has been referred by the court; (6) To refrain from acts of commission or omission that tend to make a home an improper place for a child; (7) To pay child support and all statutory fees and costs related to expenses incurred on behalf of the child, or any portion of them, as determined by the court; (8) To cooperate with and participate in any physical or mental examination or evaluation, counseling, treatment, therapy, or childcare or parenting classes considered necessary by the court for the benefit of the child; (9) To take all reasonable steps necessary to insure the child's regular school attendance;
47 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
(10) To eliminate the specific conditions constituting or contributing to the problems which led to juvenile court action; and (11) To take all reasonable steps necessary to insure the child's completion of court-ordered sanctions, treatment, therapy, counseling, or rehabilitation.
After notice and opportunity for a hearing is given to any person or party subject to an order of protection, the order may be terminated, modified, or extended for a specified period of time if the court finds it in the best interests of the child, the public, and the state. This provision is in addition to, and not a limitation of, § § 26-7A-107.1 and 26-7A-107.2.
l) Probation – Probation Revocation
The terms, conditions, and duration of probation of a child in need of supervision or delinquent child are specified by rules or orders of the court and by court services. Each child placed on probation is given a written statement of the terms and conditions of probation. The terms and conditions are fully explained to the child.
The court reviews the terms and conditions of probation and the progress of each child placed on probation at least once every six months. The court may release a child from probation or modify the terms and conditions of the child's probation at any time, but any child who has complied satisfactorily with the terms, conditions, and duration of probation is be released from probation and the jurisdiction of the court terminated.
The following provisions apply if the child is alleged to have violated the terms and conditions of probation:
48 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
(1) The court is to set a hearing on the alleged violation and is to give five days notice to the child, to the child's parents, guardian, or custodian, and to any other parties to the proceedings; (2) The child and the child's parents, guardian, or custodian are given a written statement concerning the alleged violation; (3) The child may be represented by legal counsel at the probation violation hearing and the child is entitled to the issuance of compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses; (4) If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the child violated the terms and conditions of probation, the court may modify the terms and conditions of probation, revoke probation, or take other action permitted by this chapter or chapter 26-7A, according to the least restrictive alternative which is in the best interests of the child, the public, and the state; (5) If the court finds that the child did not violate the terms and conditions of probation as alleged, the court may dismiss the proceedings and continue the child on probation under the terms and conditions previously prescribed.
m) Commitment to DOC
At the dispositional hearing for an adjudicated child in need of supervision or a delinquent child, the judge may commit the child to the Department of Corrections for out-of-home placement. In order to commit the child to the Department of Corrections, the judge must find that all efforts have been made to prevent the out-of-home placement of the child and that remaining in the home is not in the child’s best interest. Children are committed until they reach the age of 21 unless discharged sooner by the Department of Corrections. The Secretary of the Department of Corrections is named in the dispositional order as the child’s guardian.
49 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
At the time of commitment, the child is assigned a Juvenile Corrections Agent. The child remains on the Agent’s caseload until discharge or transferred to another Agent. Through an intake, assessment, and classification process, the Department places the child in a program that meets the child’s needs and security level.
The Department of Corrections operates five separate and distinct residential programs (two for females and three for males) at the STAR Academy. The Department also contracts with private group and residential treatment facilities both in South Dakota and out of state. Generally, at any given time, 40% of the juveniles are placed at one of the Star Academy programs and 60% in private placement.
Once juveniles complete their program and are recommended for release, juveniles are placed under the aftercare supervision of their Juvenile Corrections Agent. The child, the child’s parent or custodian and the Agent sign an aftercare contract that outlines the conditions of the child’s behavior and the services the child and/or family will access. The child’s aftercare may be revoked if the child violates the conditions of the aftercare contract. An administrative due process procedure is utilized to determine if the child’s aftercare should be revoked.
One of the programs at STAR Academy and a contractual program near Sioux Falls are designed for males who have completed their placement but are not recommended for a return home due to conditions being unsuitable for the success of the child. The Department also has twenty-seven foster care homes and contracts with two private providers for independent living programs for females and males who cannot return home.
50 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
2 Analysis of Juvenile Crime Problems and Juvenile Justice Needs
A Analysis of Juvenile Crime Problems
1). Arrest Arrest data is published by the Statistical Analysis Center of the Attorney Generals Office. The 2007 Crime in South Dakota Report includes juvenile arrests reported by 118 law enforcement agencies that cover 92% of the State’s population as reported by 52 Sheriff’s Offices, 65 Police Departments, and the Division of Criminal Investigation. The following table shows the statewide arrest information as published in the Crime in South Dakota Report.
Age Race 10- 13- Offenses Sex <10 12 14 15 16 17 Total White Black Indian Asian Other Total Murder and Non-negligent M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Manslaughter F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Manslaughter by Negligence F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 2 5 0 3 2 12 Forcible Rape F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 3 0 0 12 M 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 Robbery F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 M 1 4 6 4 9 12 36 Aggravated Assault F 0 1 3 2 1 0 7 31 1 11 0 0 43 M 2 6 24 32 27 25 116 Burglary - Breaking or Entering F 0 0 2 3 1 1 7 69 8 46 0 0 123 M 4 64 123 78 83 75 427 Larceny - Theft (Except MV Theft) F 5 46 95 68 73 48 335 444 19 287 7 5 762 M 0 0 3 3 2 4 12 Motor Vehicle Theft F 0 0 2 1 1 2 6 3 1 14 0 0 18 M 10 63 75 49 50 51 298 Other Assaults F 2 21 53 31 29 23 159 245 24 180 5 3 457 M 4 7 8 2 1 2 24 Arson F 0 1 1 2 2 1 7 18 0 13 0 0 31 M 0 0 1 0 3 0 4 Forgery and Counterfeiting F 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 4 0 2 0 0 6 M 0 0 9 8 11 12 40 Fraud F 0 0 1 7 7 7 22 10 0 52 0 0 62 M 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 Embezzlement F 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 5 0 1 0 0 6 Stolen Property: Buying, Receiving, M 0 3 11 3 9 4 30 Possessing F 0 0 3 2 0 1 6 22 0 12 2 0 36 M 7 37 46 45 36 29 200 Vandalism F 0 5 9 2 5 7 28 136 14 75 0 3 228 M 3 8 8 13 12 15 59 Weapons: Carrying, Possessing, etc. F 1 0 4 3 0 1 9 52 3 12 0 1 68 Prostitution and Commercialized Vice M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Age Race 10- 13- Offenses Sex <10 12 14 15 16 17 Total White Black Indian Asian Other Total F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses (Except Forcible Rape M 1 4 2 2 2 6 17 and Prostitution) F 0 0 2 0 1 1 4 19 1 1 0 0 21 Sale/Manufacturing: Opium and M 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Cocaine and their derivatives F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 M 0 0 0 3 1 9 13 Sale/Manufacturing: Marijuana F 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 11 1 1 0 1 14 Sale/Manufacturing: Synthetic M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Narcotics F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sale/Manufacturing: Other -Dangerous M 0 1 0 5 1 6 13 Non-Narcotic Drugs F 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 11 1 1 0 1 14 Possession: Opium and Cocaine and M 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 their derivatives F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 M 0 3 23 36 50 85 197 Possession: Marijuana F 0 0 4 8 15 16 43 173 5 49 2 11 240 M 0 0 0 3 2 3 8 Possession: Synthetic Narcotics F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 8 Possession: Other -Dangerous Non- M 0 3 20 31 50 67 171 Narcotic Drugs F 0 0 4 9 13 15 41 146 5 49 2 10 212 Gambling-Bookmaking (Horse and M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sport Book) F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gambling-Numbers and Lottery F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gambling-All Other Gambling F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Offenses Against Family and Children F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 1 5 22 45 73 Driving Under the Influence F 0 0 1 3 9 16 29 63 2 31 2 4 102 M 1 3 73 129 259 401 866 Liquor Laws F 0 6 90 157 194 248 695 906 27 597 9 22 1561 M 0 0 2 5 6 0 13 Drunkenness F 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 4 0 12 0 0 16 M 4 44 60 41 51 46 246 Disorderly Conduct F 1 11 29 18 10 11 80 207 23 88 3 5 326 M 0 14 49 47 21 11 142 Vagrancy F 0 3 36 22 7 2 70 138 2 70 0 2 212 M 5 18 53 54 75 79 284 All Other Offenses (Except Traffic) F 1 5 28 26 24 18 102 302 9 62 3 10 386 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Suspicion F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 16 56 50 29 23 174 Curfew and Loitering Law Violations F 0 3 50 31 16 13 113 211 2 70 2 2 287 M 0 6 50 50 51 28 185 Runaway F 0 11 82 66 74 63 296 266 22 179 7 7 481 Total 52 419 1209 1162 1354 1541 5737 3512 171 1922 44 88 5737
Although information published in the Crime in South Dakota report shows a significant decrease in juvenile arrests from previous years, information obtained
52 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
for the purpose of DMC monitoring shows arrest numbers much higher than those reported by the Division of Criminal Investigation. As an alternative plan for data collection we have identified the jurisdictions with the largest impact on the system and collected local arrest information for the purpose of DMC monitoring. The following chart includes data that the three jurisdictions analyzed for DMC, combined with DCI arrest information to get a more accurate representation of juvenile arrests in the state. 2007 Juvenile Arrests (Compiled for DMC) Minnehaha Pennington Roberts* All Other Total Asian 61 11 0 15 87 Black 270 91 1 25 387 Native American 583 2521 207 699 4010 White 1857 2028 40 1915 5840 Other/Unknown 199 18 1 62 280 Total 2970 4669 249 2716 10604 Sources: Minnehaha: SFPD reported independently by SFPD; SO and BPD from DCI Data Pennington: RCPD and SO reported by RCPD. Roberts: No Data was reported for Roberts County in the DCI Data. Information reported by States Attorney. All Other: Information obtained from DCI data.
2). Juvenile Court Referral Data The number of juvenile referrals represents the number of youth less than eighteen years of age referred to the UJS by the State’s Attorney. Based on information obtained from the S.D. Kids Count Factbook, statewide adjudicatory actions increased 34.8% from FY’99 to FY’08 and there was a 49.5% increase in non-adjudicatory actions. This also shows that the overall activity of the court increased by 36.0% between FY’99 and FY’08. Juvenile Court Actions % Change FY'99- FY’99 FY’00 FY’01 FY’02 FY’03 FY’04 FY'05 FY'06 FY'07 FY'08 FY'08 Adjudicated 4229 3475 4410 6043 5693 5490 5710 5970 6129 6491 34.8% Non- Adjudicated 1150 1235 1850 2485 1978 782 1180 1511 2272 2279 49.5% Total 5379 4710 6260 8528 7671 6272 6890 7481 8401 8770 38.7% Source: South Dakota Kids Count Factbook
53 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
It should be noted that non-adjudicatory actions are actually higher than indicated in the table above as some diversion programs operated by State's Attorneys are not included in the non-adjudicatory actions above.
3). Juvenile Court Cases Handled
a) Unified Judicial System The following table reflects the Court Service activities from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2008. Based on the number of juveniles placed on probation, the data reflects a decrease of activity beginning in 2005 and then an increase from FY’07 to FY’08. Again, it should be noted that diversion numbers indicated below do not include some diversions made directly by State's Attorneys. These diversions have increased because of the availability of Juvenile Accountability Block Grant funds that are frequently used to operate Teen Court and other diversion programs. Court Service Activities % Change FY'99- FY’99 FY’00 FY’01 FY’02 FY’03 FY’04 FY’05 FY’06 FY’07 FY’08 FY08 Juvenile Pre-hearing Social Case Study 790 620 696 794 774 572 726 593 643 702 -12.5% Placed on Probation 2393 2540 3253 3166 2859 3059 2895 2723 2777 3096 22.7% On Probation End of FY 1569 1365 1955 2165 2061 2140 1839 1878 1838 2110 25.6% Place in 90 Day Diversion 1174 1234 1850 1766 1310 1309 1152 970 860 851 -38.0% 90 day Div. Active end of FY 263 267 511 373 443 343 1851 1674 1877 1838 85.7% Placed in Case Monitoring 458 298 414 337 593 506 461 468 676 399 -14.8% Active Case Monitoring end of FY 206 82 201 159 308 221 225 262 404 236 12.7% Added During FY 4815 4692 6213 6063 5536 5446 5234 4754 4956 5048 4.6% Active End of FY 2038 1714 2667 2697 2812 2704 3915 3814 4119 4184 51.3% Source: UJS Fiscal Year Report
The following table provides Court Services activity information for FY2007 by Circuit Court. Approximately one half of the probationary activities of the Court
54 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
occur in the Second and Seventh Circuits. South Dakota’s two largest cities and the only metropolitan statistical areas, Sioux Falls and Rapid City, are located in the Second and Seventh Circuits, respectively. Once again, the diversion services numbers appear to be under reported since some diversion programs operate outside of the formal juvenile court system. This is especially true of the diversion numbers for the Seventh Circuit. Court Services Activities – FY2008 First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh SERVICE CATEGORIES Circuit Circuit Circuit Circuit Circuit Circuit Circuit State Juvenile Service: Pre-hearing Social Case Study 94 109 115 46 37 147 154 702 90-Day Diversion Services 199 317 168 23 28 69 47 851 Active Cases at End of FY 266 350 169 150 288 129 486 1838 Placed on Probation 355 629 341 128 342 240 1061 3096 On Probation at End of FY 268 533 184 137 277 192 519 2110 Restitution Received $30,155 $76,958 $48,154 $19,559 $36,638 $12,190 $36,625 $260,279 Case Services Monitoring: Placed in Program During FY 2 378 9 0 2 4 4 399 Active Cases at End of FY 4 217 6 0 0 5 4 236 Interstate Compact Cases-In 0 3 2 2 6 2 4 19 Interstate Compact Cases-Out 4 2 0 2 3 2 4 17
b) Diversion Programs In addition to court initiated diversion, the State’s Attorney can also initiate diversions and operate diversion programs. These programs operate in order to reduce the number of first time offenders exposed to the juvenile court system, assess and provide services to meet the needs of these offenders and their families, and hold juveniles accountable for their actions. Options available for diversion include: • Community Service hours • Essays and reports • Restrictions (curfew, contact with peers, drivers license, etc.) • Educational classes • Restitution
55 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
The following is a summary of diversion and teen court programs. Please note that the numbers of diversions listed do not include all diversions in locales where the State’s Attorney initiates diversions.
Minnehaha County Diversion Program The Minnehaha County Juvenile Diversion Program, which includes Sioux Empire Teen Court, is a joint effort of the Minnehaha County Regional Juvenile Detention Center, the Sioux Falls School District, and rural school districts in Minnehaha County. Juveniles aged 14-17 at the time of their offense may be referred to, or personally request that their case be handled by Teen Court. The program is designed to provide intervention to youth that commit first offenses such as shoplifting, minor drug and liquor violations, truancy, runaways, and children who are unamenable to parental control. Terms of Diversion - Any number of the following may become required conditions to be met by the juvenile. • Community Service hours • Future jury terms • Essays • Apology letters to victims or family members • Educational classes • Restitution
Pennington County Diversion Program The Pennington County Juvenile Diversion Program, which includes Teen Court, is a collaborative effort between the Pennington County State’s Attorney, the 7th Judicial Circuit Court, and local social service providers. Juvenile offenders ages 10-17 are offered the diversion program as an alternative to court involvement. Typical offenses eligible for diversion include minor consumption/possession of alcohol, shoplifting, simple
56 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
assault, disorderly conduct, disturbance of school, truancy, and possession of tobacco, marijuana, or drug paraphernalia.
Goals of the Juvenile Diversion Program include the following: 1. Reduce the number of first time offenders exposed to the juvenile court system. 2. Assess and provide services to meet the needs of these offenders and their families. 3. Reduce the rate of re-offenders among juveniles. 4. Hold juveniles accountable for their actions.
Terms of Diversion - Any number of the following may become required conditions to be met by the juvenile.
λ Community service λ Curfew restrictions λ School reports λ Drug testing; random urine analysis λ Confiscate drivers license λ Mentoring λ Write apology letter to victim λ Property Offense Class λ Substance Abuse Education Class λ Alternative Thinking Class λ Restitution to victim λ M.A.D.D. Victim Impact Panel λ Drug and alcohol evaluations λ No overnights away from home λ Counseling λ No Contact with persons whom parents or diversion staff deem to be a problem λ Youth-Fire Class for arson λ Mediation through Center for Restorative Justice λ Learning disability screening/evaluations λ Literacy Council screening
57 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Lawrence County Teen Court Program The Lawrence County Teen Court program was the first teen court program in South Dakota. Offending juveniles are held accountable for their actions by appearing for a court hearing comprised of teens. Through the program the offenders, victims and the communities are included in the response to the crime. The government and local citizens assume complementary roles in responding to the crime. Accountability is based on offenders understanding the harm caused by their actions, accepting responsibility for the harm caused and making amends.
Central South Dakota Teen Court The Central South Dakota Teen Court (CSDTC), which is located in the Pierre/Fort Pierre area strives to serve offenders in Hughes and Stanley Counties. CSDTC administers an alcohol/drug screen and risk needs assessment at intake (step one). Step two, which is accountability, is accomplished when the youth appears in Teen Court. Step three, skill building, is the enhancement goal of CSDTC. Appropriate referrals are made to community agencies to meet the defendants identified needs and all defendants take part in the monthly "Law and You" class.
Brown County Teen Court The Brown County Teen Court is a 90-day voluntary diversion program that offers juvenile offenders, ages 10 to 18 who are currently in school, an alternative to appearing in formal court. Participation in Teen Court is based upon State's Attorney referral, admission of guilt and voluntary compliance. Prior to court, the teen and parents meet with the Teen Court Coordinator(s) and discuss their possible participation in the Brown County Teen Court. All members of the Teen Court, with the exception of the Judge, who is a volunteer local attorney, are youth who have participated in training for their respective positions, or juveniles who are required to participate on the jury as a result of their Teen Court sentence.
58 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Teen Court is not about punishment, rather it is about identifying what harm teens have caused and finding a way to repair that harm. Each sentence will address the following three areas:
1. Accountability: Activities holding teens accountable for their actions by completing service work for the community. 2. Education: Activities, which provide educational opportunities for teens to understand the effects of their choices on others. 3. Community Safety: Activities to encourage teens to become a safe and contributing member of the community.
Each sentence will also include returning to sit on the jury, a community service day(s), and other options available. These include drug/alcohol counseling, writing essays, apologies and/or restitution.
Butte County Teen Court The Butte County Teen Court Program operates as an Adult Trial Model A program, as defined by the American Probation and Parole Association. In this model, youth volunteers serve as defense attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, jurors, bailiffs, and clerks. Since these cases are juvenile proceedings, confidentiality is maintained as a high priority. The mission of the Butte County Teen Court is to provide early intervention to reduce and prevent anti-social, delinquent, criminal and destructive behavior. Teen Court strives to promote feelings of self-esteem, a desire for self-improvement and to foster a healthy attitude towards rules of society and authority.
59 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
CY2007 Diversion Program Activity Minnehaha Pennington Brown Lawrence Central SD Butte Total Sex 172 812 105 81 96 50 1,316 Female 102 59.3% 366 45.1% 52 49% 34 42% 41 43% 13 26% 608 46% Male 70 40.7% 446 54.9% 53 51% 47 58% 55 57% 37 74% 708 54% Race 172 812 105 81 96 50 1,316 White 158 91.9% 494 60.8% 97 92% 75 93% 73 76% 50 100% 947 72% Black 5 2.9% 13 1.6% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 19 2% Asian 2 1.2% 2 .3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 0% American Indian 2 1.2% 284 35% 8 8% 4 5% 20 21% 0 0% 318 24% Hispanic 5 2.9% 19 2.3% 0 0% 2 2% 2 2% 0 0% 28 2% Other/Missing 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Offense Type 172 812 105 81 96 50 1,316 Status 65 37.8% 521 64.2% 62 59% 58 72% 76 79% 17 34% 799 61% Delinquent 107 62.2% 291 35.8% 43 41% 23 28% 20 21% 33 66% 517 39% Completed Cases 172 812 105 81 96 50 1,316 Successful 166 96.5% 537 66% 95 90% 75 93% 86 90% 48 96% 1,007 76% Unsuccessful 6 3.5% 275 34% 10 10% 6 7% 10 10% 2 4% 309 24% *Information was obtained from individual programs.
As identified above, in 2007, there were 1,316 cases diversion cases, 708 males (54%) and 608 females (46%). Participants by race include: 947 White (72%), 19 Black (2%), 4 Asian (0%), 318 American Indian (24%), and 28 Hispanic (2%). Most of the cases are for status offenses (61% for status offenses and 39% for delinquent offenses). Combined, South Dakota's diversion programs have a successful completion rate (juvenile completed the program requirements) of 76%.
4). Juvenile Offenders in Detention and Jails A significant amount of progress has been made in meeting the Formula Grant Program requirements since compliance legislation went into effect on July 1, 2003. The following information represents the changes from 2002 to 2007.
60 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Summary of Compliance Monitoring Violation History Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Jail Removal Separation 2002 Violations 115 291 9 Violation Rate** 56.75 143.6 2003* Violations 16 34 0 Violation Rate** 8.18 17.38 2004 Violations 9 5 1 Violation Rate** 4.6 2.56 2005 Violations 11 16 1 Violation Rate** 5.62 8.18 2006 Violations 7 6 1 Violation Rate** 3.72 3.19 2007 Violations 11 20 2 Violation Rate** 5.65 10.27 * Data Projected from July through December 2003 admission. ** Rate per 100,000 youth under the age of 18. Juvenile Population as per OJJDP 188,270
Between 2002 and 2004, there was a 92.2% decrease in Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) violations, a 98.3% decrease in Jail Removal violations, and an 88.9% decrease in Sight and Sound Separation violations. During 2005, some issues arose in compliance but were addressed by the end of the monitoring cycle and in 2006, we again saw a decrease in the number of violations.
a) Juvenile Detention Centers The following table summarizes the admissions to juvenile detention centers within South Dakota for 2005 through 2007 by race, sex, and offense type.
61 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Statewide Juvenile Detention Center Admissions Native Other Asian Black Hispanic American White Unknown Total # % # % # % # % # % # % # % 2005 33 1.1% 115 3.9% 67 2.3% 1155 39.6% 1506 51.7% 37 1.3% 2913 Male 19 0.7% 68 2.3% 43 1.5% 685 23.5% 1010 34.7% 18 0.6% 1843 63.3% Status 3 0.1% 8 0.3% 5 0.2% 83 2.8% 903 31.0% 2 0.1% 1004 34.5% Delinquent 16 0.5% 60 2.1% 38 1.3% 602 20.7% 107 3.7% 16 0.5% 839 28.8% Female 14 0.5% 47 1.6% 24 0.8% 470 16.1% 496 17.0% 19 0.7% 1070 36.7% Status 1 0.0% 15 0.5% 6 0.2% 80 2.7% 372 12.8% 7 0.2% 481 16.5% Delinquent 13 0.4% 32 1.1% 18 0.6% 390 13.4% 124 4.3% 12 0.4% 589 20.2% 2006 44 1.3% 130 3.9% 77 2.3% 975 29.2% 1254 37.6% 855 25.6% 3335 Male 23 0.7% 84 2.5% 54 1.6% 515 15.4% 848 25.4% 527 15.8% 2051 61.5% Status 4 0.1% 4 0.1% 9 0.3% 63 1.9% 743 22.3% 110 3.3% 933 28.0% Delinquent 19 0.6% 80 2.4% 45 1.3% 452 13.6% 105 3.1% 417 12.5% 1118 33.5% Female 21 0.6% 46 1.4% 23 0.7% 460 13.8% 406 12.2% 328 9.8% 1284 38.5% Status 1 0.0% 7 0.2% 4 0.1% 84 2.5% 321 9.6% 86 2.6% 503 15.1% Delinquent 20 0.6% 39 1.2% 19 0.6% 376 11.3% 85 2.5% 242 7.3% 781 23.4% 2007 26 0.8% 133 4.1% 63 2.0% 1273 39.4% 1538 47.6% 196 6.1% 3229 Male 10 0.3% 82 2.5% 47 1.5% 758 23.5% 1043 32.3% 120 3.7% 2060 63.8% Status 1 0.0% 3 0.1% 0 0.0% 158 4.9% 176 5.5% 11 0.3% 349 10.8% Delinquent 9 0.3% 79 2.4% 47 1.5% 600 18.6% 867 26.9% 109 3.4% 1711 53.0% Female 16 0.5% 51 1.6% 16 0.5% 515 15.9% 495 15.3% 76 2.4% 1169 36.2% Status 1 0.0% 11 0.3% 0 0.0% 129 4.0% 87 2.7% 13 0.4% 241 7.5% Delinquent 15 0.5% 40 1.2% 16 0.5% 386 12.0% 408 12.6% 63 2.0% 928 28.7% Notes: -Juveniles admitted to Minnehaha and Pennington County shelter are included in the counts. - Other/Unknown is extremely high due to lack of race data available from Pennington County during the period.
In 2005, South Dakota had 2,913 juvenile admissions to juvenile detention centers. This number increased to 3,335 in 2006 and decreased to 3,229 in 2007. The number of admission of status offenders admitted to detention decreased dramatically in 2007.
b) Adult Jails and Lockups The following table summarizes the admissions to jails and lockups within South Dakota for 2005 through 2007 by race, sex, and offense type.
62 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Statewide Jail & Lockup Admissions Native Other Asian Black Hispanic American White Unknown Total # % # % # % # % # % # % # % 2005 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 40.0% 15 60.0% 0 0.0% 25 Male 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 40.0% 14 56.0% 0 0.0% 24 96.0% Status 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 20.0% 0 0.0% 5 20.0% Delinquent 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 40.0% 9 36.0% 0 0.0% 19 76.0% Female 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.0% Status 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.0% Delinquent 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2006 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 21 56.8% 16 43.2% 0 0.0% 37 Male 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9 24.3% 14 37.8% 0 0.0% 23 62.2% Status 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Delinquent 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9 24.3% 14 37.8% 0 0.0% 23 62.2% Female 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 32.4% 2 5.4% 0 0.0% 14 37.8% Status 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.7% 0 0.0% 1 2.7% Delinquent 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 32.4% 1 2.7% 0 0.0% 13 35.1% 2007 0 0.0% 2 3.7% 0 0.0% 29 53.7% 22 40.7% 1 1.9% 54 Male 0 0.0% 1 1.9% 0 0.0% 24 44.4% 13 24.1% 1 1.9% 39 72.2% Status 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 7.4% 0 0.0% 4 7.4% Delinquent 0 0.0% 1 1.9% 0 0.0% 24 44.4% 9 16.7% 1 1.9% 35 64.8% Female 0 0.0% 1 1.9% 0 0.0% 5 9.3% 9 16.7% 0 0.0% 15 27.8% Status 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Delinquent 0 0.0% 1 1.9% 0 0.0% 5 9.3% 9 16.7% 0 0.0% 15 27.8%
In 2005, South Dakota had 25 juvenile admissions to adult jails and lockups. This number increased to 37 in 2006 and 54 in 2007. It should be noted that these numbers include all admissions and a majority of the cases were not violations because they fell under the 6 Hour Exception or the Rural Jail Exception applied.
5). Other Information Relevant to Delinquency Prevention Programming
a) Department of Corrections New Commitments Since July 1, 1996, judges no longer place youth in specific facilities or programs pursuant to a dispositional order. Judges may commit a youth to the Department of Corrections as a disposition for adjudication as a Child in Need of Supervision or a delinquent child. Upon commitment, the DOC places the youth in a facility or program that meets the needs of that specific
63 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
juvenile. These needs are fulfilled through juvenile correction facilities, residential treatment facilities, group care facilities, or foster care. The statewide breakdown for new commitments status, sex, age, and race for DOC New Commitments by fiscal year can be found in the following table.
Summary of DOC New Commitment Information
FY02- FY'02 FY'03 FY'04 FY'05 FY'06 FY'07 FY'08 FY08 % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Change Commit Status 406 385 353 375 368 356 375 -8.3% Status 48 11.8% 41 10.6% 48 13.6% 61 16.3% 67 18.2% 69 19.4% 36 9.6% -33.3% Delinquent 358 88.2% 344 89.4% 305 86.4% 314 83.7% 301 81.8% 287 80.6% 339 90.4% -5.6% Sex 406 385 353 375 368 356 375 -8.3% Male 296 72.9% 283 73.5% 254 72.0% 267 71.2% 252 68.5% 230 64.6% 270 72.0% -9.6% Female 110 27.1% 102 26.5% 99 28.0% 108 28.8% 116 31.5% 126 35.4% 105 28.0% -4.8% Age 406 385 353 375 368 356 375 -8.3% <10 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% - 10-12 15 3.7% 10 2.6% 7 2.0% 18 4.8% 11 3.0% 16 4.5% 11 2.9% -36.4% 13-14 67 16.5% 60 15.6% 73 20.7% 76 20.3% 62 16.8% 59 16.6% 57 15.2% -17.5% 15 63 15.5% 65 16.9% 65 18.4% 54 14.4% 80 21.7% 66 18.5% 65 17.3% 3.1% 16 109 26.8% 97 25.2% 73 20.7% 93 24.8% 76 20.7% 84 23.6% 93 24.8% -17.2% 17 101 24.9% 102 26.5% 86 24.4% 82 21.9% 94 25.5% 95 26.7% 104 27.7% 2.9% 18 or over 51 12.6% 51 13.2% 49 13.9% 51 13.6% 44 12.0% 36 10.1% 45 12.0% -13.3% Race 406 385 353 375 368 356 375 -8.3% Asian 1 0.2% 5 1.3% 4 1.1% 4 1.1% 4 1.1% 4 1.1% 1 0.3% 0.0% Black 18 4.4% 9 2.3% 6 1.7% 19 5.1% 12 3.3% 13 3.7% 10 2.7% -80.0% Hispanic 1 0.2% 7 1.8% 11 3.1% 14 3.7% 11 3.0% 13 3.7% 15 4.0% 93.3% Native American 145 35.7% 127 33.0% 143 40.5% 117 31.2% 133 36.1% 154 43.3% 155 41.3% 6.5% Other 13 3.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% - White 228 56.2% 237 61.6% 189 53.5% 221 58.9% 208 56.5% 172 48.3% 194 51.7% -17.5%
In FY 2008, DOC data reflects 375 new juvenile commitments. Of these commitments, 90.4% of juveniles were committed for delinquent behavior; 72.0% were male; 18.1% of juveniles were young offenders (14 and under); 41.3% were Native American and all other minority races comprised 7.0% of those committed.
The statewide breakdown for all new commitments, CHINS commitments, and young offender (14 and under) commitments can be found by county in the following table:
64 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
New Juvenile Committed to DOC (By County) FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 All CHINS Young All CHINS Young All CHINS Young
Commits Commits Commits Commits Commits Commits Commits Commits Commits STATEWIDE 368 67 74 356 69 75 375 36 68 AURORA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BEADLE 7 1 2 12 0 5 14 2 3 BENNETT 0 0 0 1 0 1 9 0 0 BON HOMME 3 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 BROOKINGS 13 1 3 17 4 3 6 2 2 BROWN 18 2 3 14 1 3 15 1 2 BRULE 1 1 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 BUTTE 1 1 0 6 2 1 4 0 0 CHARLES MIX 11 4 7 12 6 4 17 2 2 CLARK 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 CLAY 4 0 1 3 0 0 4 0 0 CODINGTON 14 2 1 15 1 0 21 0 2 CUSTER 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 0 DAVISON 13 6 6 15 9 5 22 8 5 DAY 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 DEUEL 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 DEWEY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EDMUNDS 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 FALL RIVER 11 0 1 4 4 1 1 0 0 FAULK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GRANT 1 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 GREGORY 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 HAAKON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HAMLIN 4 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 HANSON 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 HUGHES 13 7 3 13 7 4 7 1 2 HUTCHINSON 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 JACKSON 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 JONES 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LAKE 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 LAWRENCE 12 3 3 16 7 2 9 1 2 LINCOLN 9 1 3 8 2 1 7 1 1 LYMAN 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MARSHALL 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 MCCOOK 3 1 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 MEADE 10 3 2 8 0 0 8 0 1 MELLETTE 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 MINNEHAHA 93 10 14 73 3 19 78 2 16 MOODY 13 5 2 5 3 1 1 0 0 PENNINGTON 53 6 14 61 4 11 73 8 19 PERKINS 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 POTTER 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 ROBERTS 13 0 1 16 0 4 14 1 2 SANBORN 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 SPINK 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 STANLEY 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 SULLY 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 TRIPP 2 1 1 4 0 1 4 2 0 TURNER 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNION 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 WALWORTH 8 2 0 8 4 2 3 0 0 YANKTON 14 4 2 12 5 2 17 2 4
65 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
The largest number of new commitments in FY 2008 to the Department of Corrections came from Minnehaha (78 commitments) and Pennington (73 commitments) Counties. However, in reviewing the commitment rates, the highest overall commitment rate is found in Bennett County with 9 juvenile commitments compared to 1,085 juveniles in the population (Rate of 829 commitments per 100,000 juveniles). The highest commitment rate for CHINS is found in Davison County with 8 juvenile commitments compared to 4,602 juveniles in the population. The two counties with the highest commitment rates for young offenders (14 and under) had only one juvenile committed.
Court Services through the UJS has played a role in lowering FY08 CHINS commits. The UJS has made a stronger effort in working with CHINS and committing general funds money to provide services in order to lessen CHINS commits, which has been done through the use of Connecting Point, Capital Area Counseling Day Treatment Program, and other day treatment programs. These programs are not solely limited to CHINS participants, but the focus is certainly to reduce DOC commitments and particularly CHINS.
b) Department of Corrections Placements The following table depicts the average daily populations for placement categories utilized by the DOC for youth committed to their care and for which the Department either operates the program or pays for care through a placement contract.
66 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Average Daily Population By Fiscal Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Aftercare 583.3 513.1 421.1 461.4 460.7 DOC Run Programs 208.2 189.0 180.4 169.7 145.5 STAR Academy East Campus 40.2 39.1 42.8 42.1 40.5 STAR Academy West Campus 168.0 149.9 137.6 127.7 105 Other Placement 305.2 316.0 321.6 308.8 312.9 Department of Human Services 14.7 16.1 13.3 11.5 12.0 Detainment 30.9 32.7 33.2 29.6 35.9 DOC Paid County Jail 14.4 13.0 15.0 10.9 5.02 DOC Paid Detention Center 12.8 15.2 14.6 12.9 13.1 Non-DOC Paid County Jail - - - 0.173 7.72 Non-DOC Paid Detention Center 3.7 4.5 3.5 5.6 9.97 Other Detainment - - - - 0.07 In-State Private - DOC Paid 153.3 170.2 164.4 157.9 166.8 In-State DOC Paid Group Care 55.0 63.7 63.5 56.0 48.8 In-State DOC Paid Intensive Residential - - - 2.8 21.2 In-State DOC Paid Residential Treatment (PRTF) 98.3 106.5 100.8 99.0 96.8 In-State Private - Non DOC Paid 30.4 27.2 23.0 25.7 28.8 In-State Private - Non DOC Paid 30.4 27.2 23.0 25.7 28.8 Out of State Private - DOC Paid 75.9 69.8 87.8 84.0 63.5 Out of State Private - Medicaid Eligible 61.4 51.5 65.8 63.1 38.9 Out of State Private - Non-Medicaid Eligible 14.5 18.3 22.0 20.8 24.6 Note: Groups are based on the definitions implemented by the department in July 2007.
The private placement numbers include youth placed in private programs with the cost of care paid by the Department of Corrections. Youth placed in out-of- state facilities either have severe mental health issues, require sex offender treatment, or can not be served by an in-state facility due to the youth’s needs or because no space is available in South Dakota private facilities.
Youth under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections are also placed in private facilities based on their eligibility for services due to mental health needs, developmental disability, or chemical dependency diagnoses.
67 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
c) South Dakota’s Juvenile Incarceration Rate The following information is from OJJDP’s “Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook” which describes the number of juveniles and the rate of incarceration per 100,000. The count for this census was done on February 22, 2006.
Top 10 States Juveniles in Residential Placement Rates 2006 (per 100,000) All American State of Offense groups White Black Hispanic Indian Asian United States 295 170 767 326 540 85 South Dakota 672 371 3,049 1,139 1,889 823 District of Columbia 671 197 789 274 0 367 Wyoming 559 416 4,138 945 1,586 0 Alaska 430 257 902 178 841 314 Colorado 397 284 1,234 544 574 133 Florida 397 288 972 140 195 56 Nebraska 368 236 1,471 565 1,794 94 Indiana 364 278 945 356 153 35 North Dakota 355 240 318 387 1,392 0 California 351 163 1,268 396 408 114
South Dakota had 597 juveniles being held on February 22, 2006. Of these juveniles 435 were male (72.9%) and 162 were female (27.1%). This equates to a placement rate of 672 per 100,000 juveniles held within residential facilities that were between 10 and 17 years of age. Overall this is the highest rate in the United States
d) DOC Youth with Child Protection Involvement A recent review of sampled cases of youth committed to the Department of Corrections found that 34% had a prior history with Child Protection Services. Of those who had a child protection history, about one-third of the cases occurred when the youth was very young.
68 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
B State Priority Juvenile Justice Needs/Problem Statements
Value Statements
South Dakota’s Council of Juvenile Services has developed and adopted the following core values that it plans to use as a guide for purposes of future juvenile justice planning and development within the state:
1. Children and adolescents shall receive developmentally and culturally appropriate services. 2. All children will have the same access to needed services – regardless of income, geography, race, or jurisdiction. 3. Safety – of the community and of the child. 4. Place youth in the least restrictive community-based environment available and provide services that are evidence-based. 5. Accountability – of the child, parents, and the juvenile justice system. 6. Effective early intervention services that are evidence-based. 7. Family-based, family centered services. 8. Equal justice regardless of race – address Disproportionate Minority Contact. 9. Early and effective legal representation, including an assessment of competence and a timely and just legal process.
Problem Statements
The Council identified the following problems to be addressed through Formula Grant funds and activities during the period covered by this program plan (2009-2012):
1. Monitoring and maintaining compliance with deinstitutionalization of status offender, jail removal, and sight and sound separation requirements of the Act, as amended, is critical for continued juvenile justice system improvement.
69 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
2. Disproportionate Minority Contact – Minority youth, primarily Native American youth, are over-represented at most stages of South Dakota’s juvenile justice system. 3. The Native American Tribal juvenile justice systems have a critical lack of basic resources to address the needs of youth coming before the Tribal courts, thus compromising due process and outcomes. 4. Because of the dramatic increase of youth coming into the courts, there is a significant need for expansion of community-based prevention and early intervention programs and services to include: − Prevention − Effective Early Intervention − Children and Family Services – Child Abuse and Neglect − Mental Health Services − Developmental Disabilities Services − Services for Children in Need of Supervision − Prevalence of Substance Abuse Among Youth in the Juvenile Justice System − Education − Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder
5. Because South Dakota has one of the highest incarceration rates of detention per capita, there is a need to develop alternatives to detention, commitment to the Department of Corrections, or out-of-home placement for: − Young Offenders − CHINS − Special Needs Offenders − Low-risk delinquent offenders
70 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
3 Plans for Compliance With the First Three Core Requirements of the JJDP Act and the State’s Plan for Compliance Monitoring
A Plan for Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders
1). DSO Trend Analysis During the most recent compliance monitoring reporting period, calendar year 2007, admission data was collected and analyzed for all juvenile detention, adult jails, and all secure juvenile residential facilities.
The following table summarizes the violations within South Dakota since 2002 for the first three core requirements.
Summary of Compliance Monitoring Violation History Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Jail Removal Separation 2002 Violations 115 291 9 Violation Rate** 56.75 143.6 2003* Violations 16 34 0 Violation Rate** 8.18 17.38 2004 Violations 9 5 1 Violation Rate** 4.6 2.56 2005 Violations 11 16 1 Violation Rate** 5.62 8.18 2006 Violations 7 6 1 Violation Rate** 3.72 3.19 2007 Violations 11 20 2 Violation Rate** 5.65 10.27 * Data Projected from July through December 2003 admission. ** Rate per 100,000 youth under the age of 18. Juvenile Population as per OJJDP 188,270
In 2002, there were 115 incidents that violated the federal requirements of Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders. In 2003, South Dakota began working
71 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
towards compliance with the JJDP Act and saw a decrease in the number of violations to 16 incidents. Since this time, South Dakota has continued to keep the number of violations low. South Dakota had reduced this number to 9 violations in 2004, 11 violations in 2005, 7 violations in 2006, and 11 violations in 2007.
Since South Dakota began working on compliance with the core requirements of the JJDP Act, we have experienced a variety of obstacles relating to the implementation and education within our state. Based on the most recent review of violations in 2007, South Dakota had: • 4 Adjudicated status offenders serving sentence in a secure detention setting; • 2 Accused status offenders in secure custody for more than 24 hours; and • 4 Adjudicated status offenders serving sentence in an adult jail setting
Based on these findings, South Dakota will continue to run the County Reimbursement Program to aid in covering the costs of appropriate holding in juvenile detention facilities and nonsecure detainment as well as cover costs as they relate to the transportation of juveniles to appropriate holding locations.
72 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
2). Plan Implementation
Strategy Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 1. Continue to fund alternatives to jails 1. Fund the Reimbursement Programs. (Council Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing and secure detention and Staff) 2. Distribute materials and begin reimbursement Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing process for new sites. (Staff) 3. Add, modify or remove projects on input Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing received from law enforcement, county commissions, Judges, Court Services Officers, etc. (Council and Staff) 2. Staff Training and Education 1. Fund compliance incentives that may be used to Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing help with training costs or other projects to aid in compliance. (Council and Staff) 3. Seek input from facility administrators 1. Identify compliance issues with the staff and Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing on DSO compliance. administrators to bring before the Compliance Monitoring Committee. (Council and Staff) 2. Share compliance issues and results in June 2009 June 2010 June 2011 recommendations with CJS and Compliance Monitoring Committee. (Council and Staff) 4. Performance Measures Report Performance Measures to OJJDP. (Staff) December December December 31, 2009 31, 2010 31, 2011 Formula Grant resources will be utilized for the strategies and activities outlined above to address the DSO requirement.
73 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan
3). State Advisory Group Participation
Members of the Council of Juvenile Services review the incidents that result in violations, help staff to develop plans to ensure that the violations do not become a pattern, make funding-related decisions, and aid in facility visits to gain understanding of facilities in South Dakota where offenders could be held in violation of the requirements of the Act. The Council will receive reports on compliance issues and will direct staff to take appropriate action. Individual Council members will directly intervene on compliance problems on a case by case basis when it is determined that it is warranted and when it appears that the intervention is an effective strategy to address the problem.
B Plan for Separation of Juveniles from Adult Offenders (Separation) In 2002, Legislation was passed consistent with the sight and sound separation requirement of the Act. Although juveniles that are transferred to adult court are not included in the requirements of the Act, this procedure is not utilized in South Dakota to circumvent the separation requirement of the Act. Juveniles ages 16 or older that commit serious and violent felonies (Class A, B, 1 or 2 felonies) are prosecuted in adult court unless transferred to juvenile court. Any juvenile over the age of ten who commits a felony could be transferred from juvenile court to adult court. This is a juvenile court procedure. The judge determines whether it is in the best interest of the child and the state to transfer the child. Juvenile transfers to adult court occur infrequently and only with consideration of the seriousness of the offense or because of a chronic and escalating offense history. Juveniles transferred to adult court can be held in detention or jail.
1). Separation Violation Trend Analysis The following table summarizes the violations within South Dakota since 2002 for the first three core requirements.
74 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan
Summary of Compliance Monitoring Violation History Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Jail Removal Separation 2002 Violations 115 291 9 Violation Rate** 56.75 143.6 2003* Violations 16 34 0 Violation Rate** 8.18 17.38 2004 Violations 9 5 1 Violation Rate** 4.6 2.56 2005 Violations 11 16 1 Violation Rate** 5.62 8.18 2006 Violations 7 6 1 Violation Rate** 3.72 3.19 2007 Violations 11 20 2 Violation Rate** 5.65 10.27 * Data Projected from July through December 2003 admission. ** Rate per 100,000 youth under the age of 18. Juvenile Population as per OJJDP 188,270
In 2002, there were 9 incidents that violated the federal requirements of separation of juveniles from adult offenders. In 2003, South Dakota began working toward compliance with the JJDP Act and saw a decrease in the number of violations to 0 incidents. Since this time, South Dakota has continued to keep the number of violations low. South Dakota had reduced this number to 1 violation in 2004, 1 violation in 2005, 1 violation in 2006, and 2 violations in 2007.
Since South Dakota began working on compliance with the Separation requirement of the JJDP Act, we have experienced a variety of obstacles relating to the implementation and education within our state. Based on the most recent review of violations for 2007, South Dakota had 2 violations of sight and sound separation which consisted of 2 delinquent juveniles that were originally held in a nonsecure setting but were moved during adverse weather conditions to the
75 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan
secure portion of an adult jail that was not approved to provide sight and sound separation.
76 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
2). Plan Implementation
Strategy Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 1. Continue to fund alternatives 1. Fund the Reimbursement Programs. (Council and Staff) Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing to jails and secure detention 2. Distribute materials and begin reimbursement process for new sites. (Staff) Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing 3. Add, modify or remove projects on input received from law enforcement, county commissions, Judges, Court Services Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Officers, etc. (Council and Staff) 2. Staff Training and Education 1. Fund compliance incentives that may be used to help with Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing training costs or other projects to aid in compliance. (Council and Staff) 3. Seek input from facility 1. Identify compliance issues with the staff and administrators Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing administrators on Separation to bring before the Compliance Monitoring Committee. compliance. (Council and Staff) 2. Share compliance issues and results in recommendations June 2009 June 2010 June 2011 with CJS and Compliance Monitoring Committee. (Council and Staff) 4. Performance Measures 1. Report Performance Measures to OJJDP. (Staff) December December December 31, 2009 31, 2010 31, 2011 Formula Grant resources will be utilized for the strategies and activities outlined above to address the separation requirement.
77 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
3). State Advisory Group Participation Members of the Council of Juvenile Services review the incidents that result in violations, help staff to develop plans to ensure that the violations do not become a pattern, make funding decisions relating to funding, and aid in facility visits to gain understanding of facilities in South Dakota where offenders could be held in violation of the requirements of the Act. The Council will receive reports on compliance issues and will direct staff to take appropriate action. Individual Council members will directly intervene on compliance problems on a case by case basis when it is determined that it is warranted and when it appears that the intervention is an effective strategy to address the problem.
4). Staff Certification to Work with Juveniles in Collocated Facilities Information pertaining to the South Dakota’s standard regarding the certification of staff to work with juveniles in collocated facilities may be found within the South Dakota Compliance Monitoring Manual in Appendix E.
C Plan for Removal of Juveniles from Adult Jails and Lockups (Jail Removal)
Prior to the passage of legislature in 2003, juveniles could be held in adult jails and lockups. Under this legislation, alleged delinquent offenders can be held in an adult jail for up to six hours for the purposes of identification, processing, or to arrange for release or transfer. Rural jails in communities without appropriate juvenile facilities can be approved for holding juveniles, sight and sound separated, for up to 48 hours or until the temporary custody hearing. Juveniles in adult court can be held in juvenile or adult facilities.
Since many federal agencies did not follow the Jail Removal regulation, this caused Native American youth to be held in Tribal jails, and in some cases, county operated jails. Efforts have been made to determine the extent to which Tribal youth in the jurisdiction of the federal government are held in adult jails.
78 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
1). Removal Trend Analysis During the most recent compliance monitoring reporting period, calendar year 2007, admission data was collected and analyzed for all adult jails and lockups.
The following table summarizes the violations within South Dakota since 2002 for the first three core requirements.
Summary of Compliance Monitoring Violation History Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Jail Removal Separation 2002 Violations 115 291 9 Violation Rate** 56.75 143.6 2003* Violations 16 34 0 Violation Rate** 8.18 17.38 2004 Violations 9 5 1 Violation Rate** 4.6 2.56 2005 Violations 11 16 1 Violation Rate** 5.62 8.18 2006 Violations 7 6 1 Violation Rate** 3.72 3.19 2007 Violations 11 20 2 Violation Rate** 5.65 10.27 * Data Projected from July through December 2003 admission. ** Rate per 100,000 youth under the age of 18. Juvenile Population as per OJJDP 188,270
In 2002, there were 291 incidents that violated the federal requirements of separation of juvenile from adult offenders. In 2003, South Dakota began working towards compliance with the JJDP Act and saw a decrease in the number of violations to 34 incidents. Since this time, South Dakota has continued to keep the number of violations low. South Dakota had reduced this number to five violations in 2004, 16 violations in 2005, six violations in 2006, and 20 violations in 2007.
79 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Since South Dakota began working on compliance with the core requirements of the JJDP Act, we have experienced a variety of obstacles relating to the implementation and education within our state. Based on the most recent review of violations for 2007, South Dakota had: • 7 Accused delinquents held over 6 hours; • 2 Accused delinquents held over 6 hours during severe weather conditions (facility not approved for Rural Exception); • 1 Accused delinquent youth held over 48 hours in an approved 48 Hour Rural Jail; • 6 Adjudicated delinquent youths held as a disposition; • 4 Adjudicated status offenders serving sentence in secure setting.
In review of the 2007 admissions, it was determined that one location contributed to 11 or 55% of the total jail removal violations for the state. In response to these violations, in addition to notifying the Presiding Judge and States Attorney, compliance staff had direct discussions with the facility staff about the violations. They determined that it was in their best interest that juveniles would no longer be held in this location. Based on a preliminary review of the data submitted for 2008 for this facility, it is anticipated that there will be no violations at this facility for 2008.
80 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
2). Plan Implementation
Strategy Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 1. Continue to fund alternatives to jails and 1. Fund the Reimbursement Programs. (Council and Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing secure detention Staff) 2. Distribute materials and begin reimbursement Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing process for new sites. (Staff) 3. Add, modify or remove projects on input received Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing from law enforcement, county commissions, Judges, Court Services Officers, etc. (Council and Staff) 2. Staff Training and Education 1. Fund compliance incentives that may be used to Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing help with training costs or other projects to aid in compliance. (Council and Staff) 3. Seek input from facility administrators 1. Identify compliance issues with the staff and Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing on DSO compliance. administrators to bring before the Compliance Monitoring Committee. (Council and Staff) 2. Share compliance issues and results in June 2009 June 2010 June 2011 recommendations with CJS and Compliance Monitoring Committee. (Council and Staff) 4. Performance Measures 1. Report Performance Measures to OJJDP. (Staff) December December December 31, 2009 31, 2010 31, 2011 Formula Grant resources will be utilized for the strategies and activities outlined above to address the DSO requirement.
81 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
3). State Advisory Group Participation Members of the Council of Juvenile Services review the incidents that result in violations, help staff to develop plans to ensure that the violations do not become a pattern, make funding-related decisions, and aid in facility visits to gain understanding of facilities in South Dakota where offenders could be held in violation of the requirements of the Act. The Council will receive reports on compliance issues and will direct staff to take appropriate action. Individual Council members will directly intervene on compliance problems on a case by case basis when it is determined that it is warranted and when it appears that the intervention is an effective strategy to address the problem.
D Plan for Compliance Monitoring – First Three Core Requirements
1). Policies and Procedures South Dakota maintains a Compliance Monitoring Manual that outlines the daily efforts to maintain compliance with the requirements of Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders, Jail Removal, and Separation. This manual is updated on an as needed basis, but at least annually, and may be found at http://doc.sd.gov/about/grants/compliance.aspx.
2). Monitoring Authority South Dakota has designated the Department of Corrections as the agency responsible for monitoring compliance with the JJDP Act. The monitoring authority has been established in South Dakota Codified Law.
Additional information pertaining to the details of monitoring authority in South Dakota may be found within the South Dakota Compliance Monitoring Manual in Appendix B.
82 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
3). Monitoring Timeline As part of an adequate system of monitoring facilities, a variety of steps are conducted throughout the year to complete the monitoring process. These steps include the following: • identification and classification are completed annually; • inspections are conducted on an ongoing basis; • data collection is ongoing; and • verification is completed during regular visits.
In order to improve the timeliness of efforts for monitoring compliance, data is collected monthly for juveniles that have been place pursuant to public authority, with feedback to facilities occurring quarterly. This ensures they have the ability to provide additional information to clear incidents that appear as possible violations or review their procedures to avoid future violations.
Additional information pertaining to the monitoring timeline in South Dakota may be found within the South Dakota Compliance Monitoring Manual beginning on page 53.
4). Violation Procedures Any possible violations identified or complaints that are brought to the attention of the Department of Corrections relating to a specific location or incident result in an investigation by the Compliance Monitoring Coordinator and communication with the facility administrator. During the initial stage of investigation, the Compliance Monitoring Coordinator will work with the facility to determine what has occurred in the facility and determine if the complaint involves a compliance violation. If a compliance violation is substantiated, the Compliance Monitor will begin working with the location to develop a plan to address those issues that resulted in the violation. If those issues that resulted in the complaint and violation are not resolved, more aggressive actions are taken which could include reporting the violations to the facility or agency chief
83 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
executive officer; reports to the State's Attorney, Attorney General, or Presiding Judge; removal of juveniles from the location through contacts with the placing authority; withholding of funds; intervention by the Council of Juvenile Services; or other actions that are deemed necessary in order to ensure compliance.
Additional information pertaining to the details for violation procedures in South Dakota may be found within the South Dakota Compliance Monitoring Manual beginning on page 49.
5). Barriers and Strategies South Dakota has a variety of barriers relating to the lack of services in rural areas, geographic distance for travel and to services, collection of justice related data, and education of staff throughout the stages of the justice system.
Additional information pertaining to the barriers and strategies in South Dakota may be found within the South Dakota Compliance Monitoring Manual on page 45.
6). Definition of Terms South Dakota was granted participation in March 2004 due to the passing of legislation that updated definitions in South Dakota Codified Law to be consistent to the definitions as found in the JJDP Act.
Additional information pertaining to the definition of terms in South Dakota may be found within the South Dakota Compliance Monitoring Manual in Appendix C.
7). Identification of Monitoring Universe As part of an adequate system of monitoring facilities, identification of the monitoring universe is completed through an annual review of resources from licensing and overseeing agencies. The entities publishing these resources
84 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
include Department of Corrections, Division of Criminal Investigation, Department of Social Services, Department of Human Services, and Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Additional information pertaining to the identification of the monitoring universe in South Dakota may be found within the South Dakota Compliance Monitoring Manual beginning on page 20.
8). Classification of Monitoring Universe As part of an adequate system of monitoring facilities, classification of the monitoring universe is completed through an annual review of resources from licensing and overseeing agencies. The entities publishing these resources include Department of Corrections, Division of Criminal Investigation, Department of Social Services, Department of Human Services, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. In addition, data to help with classification is collected and reviewed to help ensure the appropriate classification of facilities as well as non- detaining administrative locations.
Additional information pertaining to the classification of the monitoring universe in South Dakota may be found within the South Dakota Compliance Monitoring Manual beginning on page 22.
9). Inspection of Facilities As part of an adequate system of monitoring facilities, inspection is completed on an ongoing basis for the purpose of verifying the classification, ensuring compliance with standards of care (collocated), and verification of data as it relates to compliance. In addition to the inspection completed by the Department of Corrections Formula Grant staff and staff of agencies that have licensing or contracting authority, agencies have included their staff in the monitoring process to aid in the identification and correct classification of locations under their jurisdiction.
85 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Additional information pertaining to the inspection of facilities in South Dakota may be found within the South Dakota Compliance Monitoring Manual beginning on page 27.
10). Data Collection and Verification As part of an adequate system of monitoring facilities, the Department of Corrections Formula Grants staff is responsible for the data collection from all facilities in the state that might hold juveniles pursuant to public authority. Every facility that has this potential—regardless of the purpose for housing juveniles or operator—is subject to the monitoring requirements. Data collection and reporting are required to determine whether facilities in the state are in compliance with the applicable requirements of DSO, jail removal, and separation.
Additional information pertaining to the data collection and verification in South Dakota may be found within the South Dakota Compliance Monitoring Manual beginning on page 30.
86 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
4 Plan for Compliance with the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Core Requirement
A Phase I: Identification
Updated DMC Identification Spreadsheets
The State of South Dakota has updated 2007 DMC RRI information which may be found in Attachment #2 for South Dakota (statewide), Minnehaha County, Pennington County, and Roberts County.
Consistent with direction received from OJJDP and their DMC consultant, South Dakota has focused their DMC analysis on statewide data and the two largest jurisdictions, Pennington County and Minnehaha County. This determination was based on the fact that these two jurisdictions are the only locations that have enough local system activity to track minority over-representation in a statistically significant and valid manner. However, the Council of Juvenile Services and the South Dakota Disproportionate Minority Contact Committee determined that an additional site that has a significant amount of minority youth entering the juvenile justice system should be included in the DMC process. Therefore, a third location was established in Roberts County based on the large number of DOC commitments of Native American youth. The third site is required to implement DMC Interventions and ensure that they have collaborative efforts with local Tribes to help address issues of over representation.
DMC Data Discussions
The following sections discuss the Relative Rates Indexes (RRIs) obtained and make comparisons between the data obtained in 2002 through 2007.
The following table shows the base populations for each of the stages.
87 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Stage Base Used Juvenile Arrest Per 1,000 youth in the population Diversion Per 100 juvenile referrals Secure Detention Per 100 juvenile referrals Cases Petitioned Per 100 juvenile referrals Delinquent/CHINS Findings Per 100 cases petitioned Probation Per 100 cases found delinquent/CHINS DOC Commit Per 100 cases found delinquent/CHINS
The Relative Rate Index (RRI) is calculated in a manner that compares the rate for minority youth to the rate for White youth. For example, a RRI in 2007 at the arrest stage equal to 3.06 for Native American youth would translates into: Based on juvenile population, the arrest rate for Native American juveniles is 3.06 times higher when compared to White juveniles.
RRI Data Trends
South Dakota has been in participation with the JJDP Act for only a short time and the DMC Intervention pilot sites have been funded for three years. Although there has been benefits identified by the intervention strategies, the most recent data shows a limited impact since the projects would be within a year from their implementation date and therefore may not have been around long enough to show changes in RRI numbers.
Through a review of the RRI information, numbers indicate that Native American youth are overrepresented throughout the system and at much higher rates than any other minority group in South Dakota. Based on this information, South Dakota will continue to focus efforts on reduction strategies for Native American youth with the idea that improving the system for the largest group will improve the system for all juveniles within the system. Each pilot site will be responsible for the creation of local DMC Intervention plans that focus on reduction strategies for the implementation of early intervention programs, prevention programs, and system collaboration.
88 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Statewide
In South Dakota, the race/ethnicity categories that make up at least 1% of the total juvenile population include Black, Hispanic (for any race), Asian, and Native American. The following table provides RRI for all minority youth.
Statewide RRI Trends – All Minorities 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Arrest 2.14 2.31 2.31 2.17 2.88 3.06 Diversion 0.72 1.83 1.40 0.92 0.46 0.44 Detention 1.35 1.65 1.55 1.97 2.58 1.48 Petition Filed 1.66 2.73 2.71 1.79 1.31 1.10 Adjudication 0.77 0.82 0.99 0.83 0.76 0.87 Probation 0.87 0.91 0.94 0.81 0.85 0.86 DOC Commit 1.01 0.81 0.55 1.05 1.38 1.28
Minority juveniles represent 21.0% of the total juvenile population under age 18. In 2007, this group is statistically significant in comparison to White juveniles at the stages of arrest, diversion, secure detention, cases petitioned, adjudication, probation, and commitment to DOC. Minority youth constituted 45% of the youth arrested but only 25% of the youth diverted.
Due to size of the juvenile populations and the amount of activity in the juvenile justice system additional focus is placed on Native American juveniles. The following table provides RRI only for Native American youth.
89 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Statewide RRI Trends – Native American 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Arrest 2.23 2.40 2.39 2.26 3.07 4.00 Diversion 0.36 0.42 0.60 0.53 0.35 0.64 Detention 1.25 1.62 1.39 1.88 1.39 2.03 Petition Filed 0.75 0.84 0.82 0.97 0.82 1.09 Adjudication 0.92 0.90 1.02 0.96 0.85 1.02 Probation 1.11 1.20 1.21 1.13 1.11 1.08 DOC Commit 1.78 2.33 1.59 1.54 1.81 1.73
Native American juveniles represent 13.6% of the total juvenile population under age 18. In 2007, this group is statistically significant in comparison to White juveniles at the stages of arrest, diversion, secure detention, cases petitioned, probation, and commitment to DOC. Native American youth comprised 38% of the youth arrested and 39% of the youth detained on a statewide basis.
Minnehaha County
In Minnehaha County, the race/ethnicity categories that make up at least 1% of the total juvenile population include Black, Hispanic (for any race), Asian, and Native American. The following table provides RRI for all minority youth. Minnehaha RRI Trends – All Minorities 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Arrest 3.79 2.90 3.30 4.25 3.62 2.99 Diversion 1.76 5.11 1.63 1.03 0.99 0.38 Detention 1.67 1.97 1.51 1.71 2.16 1.29 Petition Filed 2.34 5.46 5.10 1.60 1.80 1.04 Adjudication 0.95 0.84 1.06 0.91 0.84 0.86 Probation 0.77 0.94 0.98 0.78 0.70 0.72 DOC Commit 0.58 0.56 0.34 1.27 1.05 1.74
Minority juveniles represent 16.7% of the total juvenile population under age 18 in Minnehaha County. In 2007, this group is statistically significant in comparison to White juveniles at the stages of arrest, diversion, secure
90 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
detention, petition filed, adjudication, probation, and commitment to DOC. Minority youth constituted 37% of the youth arrested but only 20% of the youth diverted. Minority youth comprised 45% of the youth detained.
The largest group of minority youth in Minnehaha County is a combination of all minority youth with Hispanic ethnicity. This group consists of 6.1% of all minority youth. This is the first year South Dakota is breaking these juveniles out within the population information. Some stages have incorporated this definition in their respective data management systems while others have not yet made this change. Although this information is not consistently reported, youth in Minnehaha County with Hispanic ethnicity are found to be overrepresented at the arrest stage (RRI 1.36).
The second largest population in Minnehaha County is represented by Black juveniles. The following table provides RRI only for Black youth. Minnehaha RRI Trends – Black 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Arrest 2.78 2.38 2.66 2.45 2.06 2.18 Diversion ** ** 0.50 0.85 1.39 0.54 Detention 1.24 1.28 1.12 1.42 1.79 1.49 Petition Filed 0.61 0.74 0.62 0.92 1.21 1.02 Adjudication 0.86 0.81 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.96 Probation 1.14 1.06 ** 1.28 1.05 1.14 DOC Commit ** ** ** ** ** **
Black juveniles represent 5.6% of the total juvenile population under age 18 in Minnehaha County. In 2007, this group is statistically significant in comparison to White juveniles at the stages of arrest, diversion, and secure detention. Black youth comprised 9% of the youth arrested and detained but only 5% of the youth diverted.
Due to the amount of activity in the juvenile justice system for Native American youth additional focus is placed on this group of juveniles for
91 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
DMC reduction. The following table provides RRI only for Native American youth. Minnehaha RRI Trends – Native American 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Arrest 6.85 4.98 5.34 8.73 7.18 8.48 Diversion ** ** ** 0.59 0.66 0.47 Detention 1.34 1.53 1.41 1.31 1.76 2.02 Petition Filed 0.39 0.64 0.56 0.63 0.91 1.02 Adjudication 0.88 0.76 0.68 0.98 0.80 0.71 Probation 1.21 1.16 ** 1.19 1.13 1.10 DOC Commit 3.55 6.01 ** 2.13 ** 4.17
Native American juveniles represent 3.1% of the total juvenile population under age 18 in Minnehaha County. In 2007, this group is statistically significant in comparison to White juveniles at the stages of arrest, diversion, secure detention, adjudication, and commitment to DOC. Native American youth comprised 19% of the youth arrested and 26% of those detained but only 5% of the youth diverted.
Pennington County
In Pennington County, the race/ethnicity categories that make up at least 1% of the total juvenile population include Black, Hispanic (for any race), Asian, and Native American. The following table provides RRI for all minority youth. Pennington RRI Trends – All Minorities 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Arrest 4.25 4.61 4.47 4.16 4.80 4.51 Diversion -- -- 0.52 -- 0.49 0.44 Detention 0.85 1.19 1.15 1.39 4.72 1.25 Petition Filed 1.14 1.36 1.51 1.55 1.49 1.00 Adjudication 0.97 0.87 0.95 1.01 0.71 0.94 Probation 0.85 0.95 1.01 0.95 0.94 0.95 DOC Commit ** ** ** ** 3.93 1.85
92 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Minority juveniles represent 22.4% of the total juvenile population under age 18 in Pennington County. In 2007, this group is statistically significant in comparison to White juveniles at the stages of arrest, diversion, secure detention, adjudication, probation, and commitment to DOC. Minority youth comprised 57% of the youth arrested and 65% of those detained but only 40% of youth diverted.
Due to size of the juvenile populations and the amount of activity in the juvenile justice system, additional focus is placed on Native American juveniles. The following table provides RRI only for Native American youth. Pennington RRI Trends – Native American 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Arrest 4.96 5.37 5.19 5.32 6.08 8.29 Diversion -- -- 0.50 -- 0.46 0.47 Detention 0.85 1.20 1.16 1.40 1.83 1.21 Petition Filed 1.11 1.08 1.17 1.33 1.38 1.00 Adjudication 0.97 0.90 0.96 1.11 0.73 1.00 Probation 0.92 0.94 1.01 0.06 0.94 0.95 DOC Commit 1.67 2.01 1.55 1.10 ** 1.91
Native American juveniles represent 11.6% of the total juvenile population under age 18 in Pennington County. In 2007, this group is statistically significant in comparison to White juveniles at the stages of arrest, diversion, secure detention, probation, and commitment to DOC. Native American youth comprised 55% of the youth arrested and 60% of those detained but only 37% of youth diverted.
Roberts County
In Roberts County, the race/ethnicity categories that make up at least 1% of the total juvenile population include Native American and Hispanic (for any race). The following table provides RRI for all minority youth.
93 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Roberts RRI Trends – All Minorities 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Arrest ~ 9.69 14.96 9.32 9.03 5.43 Diversion ~ ** ** ** ** ** Detention ~ ** ** ** ** ** Petition Filed ~ ** ** ** ** ** Adjudication ~ ** ** ** ** ** Probation ~ ** ** ** ** ** DOC Commit ~ ** ** ** ** **
Minority juveniles represent 49.0% of the total juvenile population under age 18 in Roberts County. In 2007, this group is statistically significant in comparison to White juveniles at the stage of arrest. It should also be noted that many of the other stages have notable levels of activity, however, the volume for White youth drops thus noteable to calculate RRI values at those stages.
Due to size of the juvenile populations and the amount of activity in the juvenile justice system additional focus is placed on Native American juveniles. The following table provides RRI only for Native American youth. Roberts RRI Trends – Native American 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Arrest ~ 9.77 15.10 9.58 9.13 4.71 Diversion ~ ** ** ** ** ** Detention ~ ** ** ** ** ** Petition Filed ~ ** ** ** ** ** Adjudication ~ ** ** ** ** ** Probation ~ ** ** ** ** ** DOC Commit ~ ** ** ** ** **
Native American juveniles represent 46.2.0% of the total juvenile population under age 18 in Roberts County. In 2007, this group is statistically significant in comparison to White juveniles at the stage of arrest. It should also be noted that many of the other stages have notable
94 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
levels of activity, however, the volume for White youth drops thus noteable to calculate RRI values at those stages.
B Phase II: Assessment/Diagnosis
In the Assessment phase of the DMC Process, the Department of Corrections contracted with researchers from Mountain Plains Research to conduct an assessment of DMC in order to assist the Council in identifying interventions that can reduce the occurrence of DMC. Based on findings of the assessment the following mechanisms have been identified as contributing to minority over representation in South Dakota: • Differential Behavior: The rates at which youth from various racial and ethnic subgroups are involved in activity may differ. • Indirect Effects: Reflects the fact that in this society, economic status, education, location, and a host of risk factors associated with delinquent behavior, among other factors, are linked with race and ethnicity. • Differential Opportunities for Prevention and Treatment: The allocation of prevention and treatment resources within communities is seldom uniform or universally accessible across the entire community. In some instances, those allocations create a disadvantage for minority youth. • Differential Processing or Inappropriate Decision-making Criteria: Differential processing or inappropriate decision-making criteria can be an issue in determining program eligibility, implementing diversion programs, and selecting alternative decision outcomes. • Justice by Geography: The concept that youth in general, and minority youth in particular, may be processed or handled differently in one jurisdiction than in another within the same state. • Legislation, Policies, and Legal Factors With Disproportionate Impact: Policies enacted through legislation or through administrative action may sometimes contain elements that create a disadvantage for minority youth.
95 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
C Phase III: Intervention
1). Progress Made in FY 2008
a) Activities Implemented The Council of Juvenile Services selected three communities in which to fund local DMC interventions – Minnehaha, Pennington, and Roberts Counties. FY2008 allocations for DMC intervention projects was set at $80,000 for both Minnehaha and Pennington Counties and $40,000 for Roberts County. In addition, an additional allocation was established to help cover costs for part-time local coordination efforts. Project funding was as follows: 2008 DMC Intervention Strategies Current Location Provider Description Allocation Minnehaha $94,160.00 Lutheran Social Services Cultural Translator $67,500.00 Great Plains Psychological Services Parenting Skills Classes $12,500.00 South Dakota Coalition for Children Local Coordination $14,160.00 Pennington $94,160.00 Rapid City Area Schools Prevention Specialist Positions and $80,000.00 Family, School, and Cultural Programs Society for the Advancement of Local Coordination $14,160.00 Native Interests Today (SANI-T)
Roberts $44,160.00 City of Sisseton School Resource Officer $30,000.00 Sisseton School District Local Coordination $14,160.00 * Funding for the above projects runs from 03/01/2008 to 06/30/2009.
DMC Awareness – In order to create awareness about DMC, a variety of information dissemination products were established which included presentations, publications, press releases, and website enhancements.
Data Improvement – As part of the plan, data is monitored and plans are made as necessary to address missing data as an ongoing process. Efforts are ongoing to improve quantity and quality of the data currently available for the study of DMC.
96 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Cultural Competency Training – During 2006, the process of developing and implementing cultural competency training was initiated. The process began with researching available resources for DMC training. Based on the results of this research, a request for proposals was distributed. Through the RFP process, a contract was identified to develop and implement cultural competency training for juvenile justice practitioners. During 2007, many issues arose about possible negative impacts about the approach to cultural training and the Council of Juvenile Services voted to terminate the existing contract. In 2008, plans were approved to move forward with a plan for implementing training.
Local DMC Workgroups – The DMC Coordinator provides ongoing support for the three local DMC Workgroups. Each of these local intervention locations holds quarterly meetings. The DMC Coordinator also monitors the progress of the local intervention projects, researches local DMC issues, and provides feedback to the state DMC Committee on the progress of the local DMC intervention workgroups.
Age of Compulsory School Attendance – Increasing the compulsory school attendance age to 18 was identified as a DMC intervention. Senate Bill 199, which passed in the 2007 Legislature, increased the age that youth must attend school from 16 to 18 years of age. Formula Grant staff and the Council of Juvenile Services provided support during the legislative session for passage of Senate Bill 199. The Council also hosted a juvenile justice symposium that focused on preparing communities and schools for increase in age that youth must remain in school.
b) Activities Not Implemented Agency Assessment – In the initial DMC intervention strategies, a strategy was identified to assess the cultural competence of each
97 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
agency/department/system that is involved in the juvenile justice system. This strategy was intended to be placed at the beginning of the process in an effort to determine what training was needed. In going through the process, it was determined that many were unaware of where they were lacking. As part of the cultural competency training process, there will be a component to include an assessment to help shape future DMC training including new topics, needed changes, etc.
Legal Education Program – The focus of the program would be on the rights and responsibilities, navigating the justice system, and parenting a juvenile that is involved with the juvenile justice system. Based on the differences between jurisdictions, it was determined that this strategy would be better suited as a local intervention strategy .
98 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
2). DMC Reduction Plan for FY 2009-2011
a) Activities, Strategies, and Timelines for DMC
Strategy Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Interventions in 2 Locations 1. Request proposals from all locations eligible for July 2009-June 2010 July 2009-June 2010 July 2009-June 2010 that focus on decreasing funding DMC Interventions in two Metropolitan DMC Statistical Areas. ($60,000 per site) Increase collaboration with 1. Request proposals from all locations eligible for July 2009-June 2010 July 2009-June 2010 July 2009-June 2010 Native American Tribes and funding DMC Interventions in one location where the state juvenile justice plans have been established to increase system collaboration with tribal entities. ($30,000 per site) Increase education and 1. Hold initial planning meetings of the DMC February-June 2009 training opportunities Cultural Training Development Workgroup. regarding Disproportionate 2. Implementation of initial training in Sioux Falls September 2009 Minority Contact (DMC) and Rapid City. 3. Completion of the final evaluation of the training December 2009 pilot. 4. Implementation of ongoing education and training January 2010 Ongoing opportunities. Dissemination of DMC 1. Disseminate the DMC information. (presentations, Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing information press releases, website) Data improvement projects 1. Identification and implementation of data Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing improvement projects. Evaluation 1. Develop local evaluations plans. May 2009 May 2010 May 2011 2. Quarterly DMC site updates. Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing 3. Annual evaluation visits. Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing 4. Intervention site assessment. March 2010 March 2011 Ongoing Monitoring 1. Completion of DMC Spreadsheets for statewide March 30, 2009 March 30, 2010 March 30, 2011 and local DMC sites and detailed data review. 2. Submission of Performance Measures to OJJDP. December 30, 2009 December 30, 2010 December 30, 2011 Assessment 1. DMC Assessment Planning. September 2011 2. DMC Data Collection. November 2011
99 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
b) Goals, Objectives, and Measures
PROGRAM AREA: Disproportionate Minority Contact
STANDARD PROGRAM AREA: 10 STATE PROGRAM DESIGNATOR: 10 Problem Statement: Minority youth, primarily Native American youth, are over-represented at most stages of South Dakota’s juvenile justice system.
Goal 1: Decrease Disproportionate Minority Contact within the juvenile justice system through identification, assessment, intervention, evaluation, and ongoing monitoring of juvenile justice system activity. Objective 1: Financially support the implementation of the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) intervention efforts and initiatives in two communities that focus on reduction strategies for populations of minority youth that have over-representation in the juvenile justice system during State Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012. Activity 1: Local Workgroups in MSA locations develop a proposed plan for the use of DMC funding that include workgroup coordination, programs - prevention, education, school attendance, collaboration, providing services with a “No Wrong Door” policy, and programs that stress the importance of families through early education of parenting skills for current and future parents - and other DMC-related activities. Activity 2: Once the plan is approved by the Council of Juvenile Services, establish a contract between DOC and local entities to implement the local DMC intervention plan. Objective 2: Evaluate and monitor local Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) efforts and initiatives for performance and effectiveness in the two DMC intervention communities. Activity 1: Local Workgroup Coordinators to provide local updates and Performance Measures to the Department of Corrections. Activity 2: Local Workgroup Coordinators attend DMC committee meetings in a staff capacity to provide local updates. Goal 2: Increase collaboration with Native American Tribes and the state juvenile justice system in order to improve coordination and access services operated by tribal entities including temporary custody, diversion, and treatment services instead of relying solely on existing state operated or contracted programs. Objective 1: Financially support the implementation of the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) efforts and initiatives in one community that focus on tribal collaboration and reduction strategies for populations of minority youth that have over-representation in the juvenile justice system during State Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012. Activity 1: Department of Corrections identifies locations with significant Native American overrepresentation within the juvenile justice system and notifies them that they are eligible for a competitive grant.
100 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Activity 2: Local Workgroups in eligible locations develop a plan for the use of DMC funding that include workgroup coordination, state-tribal collaboration, intervention strategies, and other DMC-related activities. Activity 3: Once the plan is approved by the Council of Juvenile Services, Local Workgroup Coordinator in conjunction with the Local DMC Workgroup implements plans for the implementation of collaboration projects with Tribal government. Goal 3: Increase education and training opportunities regarding Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC), Native American culture awareness training, and other minority issues, for juvenile justice practitioners and service providers. Objective 1: Establish the DMC Cultural Training Development Workgroup. Activity 1: Department of Corrections contact local stakeholders to identify possible trainers for the DMC Cultural Training Development Workgroup. Objective 2: Implement education and training opportunities. Activity 1: Hold planning meetings of the DMC Cultural Training Development Workgroup. Activity 2: Department of Corrections to contract with trainers for service delivery. Activity 3: Trainers develop curriculum. Activity 4: Implementation of initial training in Sioux Falls and Rapid City. Activity 5: Implementation of ongoing education and training opportunities. Objective 3: Evaluate education and training opportunities. Activity 1: Establish a contract with a researcher to educate on DMC, evaluate the implementation of the training, and make recommendations for changes and future implementation. Activity 2: Development of formative evaluation components. Activity 3: Training evaluation and future recommendations completed by researcher and presented to the DMC Cultural Training Development Workgroup. Activity 4: DMC Cultural Training Development Workgroup identifies and adjusts training plan based on necessary changes (new topics, delivery, etc.). Objective 4: Support efforts that promote education and opportunities for reducing Disproportionate Minority Contact and collaboration between state, local, and Tribal governments. Activity 1: Support holding the juvenile justice symposium that would focus on DMC and collaboration efforts. Activity 2: Hold a joint meeting/work sessions of the Disproportionate Minority Contact Committee, the three local workgroups, and the Tribal Advisory Group in conjunction with the JJ Symposium.
101 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Performance Measures Number of programs implemented Number of program youth served. Number of agencies reporting improved data collection. Number and percent of program youth who offend or reoffend. Number and percent or program youth exhibiting desired change in behavior. Number and percent of program youth completing program requirements. Number of contributing factors determined from assessment studies. Number of contact points reporting reduction in disproportionality. Number and percent of recommendations from assessment studies implemented.
D Phase IV: Evaluation Each intervention strategy implemented has an evaluation plan for collecting information that is developed at the time of funding agreements or updates. The measures collected include the performance level information as required by OJJDP. In addition, each evaluation plan includes additional data that will be utilized by the local DMC Workgroups, the DMC Committee, and the Council of Juvenile Services in determining future funding options.
Each funded intervention strategy will also receive annual evaluation visits for the purpose of updates, record maintenance, function, and progress reporting.
No formal evaluation process has been undertaken.
E Phase V: Monitoring South Dakota will continue to fund a part-time DMC Coordinator. The duties of the DMC Coordinator will be to oversee the implementation of statewide strategies, oversee local projects, and monitor data trends.
South Dakota will continue to update DMC information on an annual basis. Data will be compiled when it has become available to the department for review. More information on strategies for the ongoing monitoring of DMC in South Dakota are outlined in the DMC Reduction plan found in this section.
102 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
5 Coordination of Child Abuse and Neglect and Delinquency Programs
A Reducing Probation Officer Caseloads The Act allows Formula Grant participants to reserve funds and provide incentive grants to units of general local government to reduce the caseload of probation officers. In South Dakota, probation is a state responsibility through the Unified Judicial System. South Dakota does not plan to reserve funds for this section of the Act. Funds reserved would not go to units of local government as they do not provide probation services; therefore, this section is not applicable to South Dakota and our Three-Year Plan.
B Sharing Public Child Welfare Records with Juvenile Courts 1. Juvenile Justice Records Committee
The Committee was initially formed in 2005 to address the child welfare records requirements of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended. The primary goal of the Committee is to develop recommendations to address the record sharing requirements of the Act. The Committee also identified other opportunities to improve records sharing between individuals and agencies working with children and families in the child protection and juvenile justice systems in South Dakota.
It is hoped that by addressing the information sharing barriers between agencies and individuals working in the child protection and juvenile justice systems, increased collaboration will occur that leads to improved service provision and outcomes for children and families.
Consistent with federal and state confidentiality requirements and keeping with the best interests of the child, the mission of the Juvenile Justice Records Committee is to ensure appropriate information sharing between agencies and individuals to aid in the delivery of services to children and families involved in South Dakota’s child protection and juvenile justice systems.
103 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
The Juvenile Justice Records Committee is comprised of representatives from the Division of Juvenile Services, Division of Child Protection Services, the Unified Judicial System, States Attorneys, defense counsel and education.
2. Child Welfare Records Legislation
In 2006, the Council of Juvenile Services requested technical assistance from the OJJDP to address the appropriate sharing of child welfare records with the Court and juvenile corrections. Through this technical assistance, staff from the Child Welfare League of America facilitated the efforts of the Juvenile Justice Records Committee to develop legislation to provide for the sharing of child welfare records.
In October of 2006, the draft legislation developed by the Committee was approved by the Council for submission in the 2007 Legislative Session. The draft legislation authorized child abuse registry checks on individuals who were being considered as placement options by the Court or the Department of Corrections. Further, the legislation provided for the sharing of abuse and neglect file information in CHINS and delinquency proceedings and for individuals committed to the DOC. The legislation also authorized the DOC to share it's records with the Court and Child Protection Services.
The legislation, in the form of House Bill 1059, passed both houses of the Legislature with overwhelming majorities and was signed into law by Governor Rounds on February 2, 2007.
104 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
C Establishing Policies and Systems to Incorporate Child Protective Services Records into Juvenile Justice Records
Juvenile arrest records are routinely shared with the courts, Child Protection Services, and the Department of Corrections. South Dakota’s juvenile justice system utilizes a Release-of-Information form signed by the juvenile and /or parents/guardian in order to share education, mental health, and substance abuse records consistent with federal law. Historically, the sharing of Child Protection records with the courts and the Department of Corrections has been a problem. With the authorization to share records provided by House Bill 1059, the Juvenile Justice Records Committee and the participating agencies have addressed and continue to monitor this barrier by developing the necessary protocols, agreements, policies and forms to allow for the sharing of these records and the incorporation of this information into the treatment and case planning processes of the various agencies.
The Department of Corrections and the Department of Social Services are collaborating efforts to address the issue of youth that crossover between both agencies. These two departments are in the initial discussion stages of how to best provide services and address problems when joint custody exists between both agencies, and subsequently develop clear protocols for those youth under joint custody.
105 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
6 Collecting and Sharing Juvenile Justice Information
A Efforts for Statewide Information Sharing In an effort to be consistent with information already published, South Dakota uses summary data as provided in the state fiscal reports. • Department of Education Information is available online in summary format. • Department of Social Services, Child Protection Services’ annual summary information is made available only through special request. • Arrest information is collected by the Department of Criminal Investigation to complete their annual Crime in South Dakota Report and is shared upon special request by reporting entity. • Court data consists of information from the Unified Judicial System’s annual report. For the purposes of DMC and Compliance Monitoring, court data consists of juvenile-specific data obtained from the Unified Judicial System’s annual computer download. • Department of Corrections collects all admission data for the purpose of compliance monitoring. • Department of Corrections data is readily available for use of detailed information. • KidsCount Fact Book is an annual publication completed on a statewide basis, and funded through the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Departments throughout the state report information for this publication. • Youth Risk Behavior Survey is available in summary format through the Department of Human Services • The Department of Human Services, Division of Alcohol and Drug information is available through the division’s annual report.
B Barriers to Information Sharing
South Dakota has encountered many barriers during the collection of information of juvenile justice data. Major barriers that have been identified at this time include:
106 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
• Juvenile Matching – Due to the separate juvenile systems and process for assigning identification numbers, many juvenile records are not able to be matched in order to track juveniles through the justice system. • Juvenile specific temporary custody information – Temporary custody information is not available on a statewide basis so it is difficult to determine how many of these contacts are repeatedly being taken into temporary custody and how many are first time offenders. • Inconsistency – Many departments collect data while skipping other important demographic components. • Usage – Lack of data use leads to decreased efforts to maintain it because it is not found to be important. • Tribal – Tribal data has become a major issue in order to determine if a Tribe “attempts to comply” with the federal requirements. In efforts to collect the information, many Tribes have voiced concerns about how the information would be used and if it would be used to adversely influence current funding. In addition, many Tribes do not run their own facilities and record maintenance has been identified as an issue because it is not possible to break out information by holding entity.
107 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
7 Program Descriptions
PROGRAM AREA: Compliance Monitoring
STANDARD PROGRAM AREA: 06 STATE PROGRAM DESIGNATOR: 06 Problem Statement: Maintaining compliance with the Acts core requirements and fulfilling the required monitoring responsibilities is critical to continued involvement in the Formula Grants program and long-term juvenile justice system improvement. Goal 1: Maintain and improve South Dakota’s compliance monitoring system consistent with Formula Grant Program requirements. Objective 1: Improve the South Dakota Compliance Monitoring System in order to increase compliance with JJDPA core requirements. Activity 1: Collect juvenile admission information from secure facilities, analyze data for violations, and compile data into the Compliance Monitoring Report and submit to OJJDP. Activity 2: Develop compliance-related materials. Activity 3: Conduct meetings, monitoring visits, inspections, and training to aid in the development of compliance strategies. Activity 4: Update and classify compliance monitoring universe on an annual basis. Objective 2: Increase the knowledge of staff working within the South Dakota Compliance Monitoring System in order to increase compliance with JJDPA Core Requirements. Activity 1: Provide opportunities for staff working with the JJDPA Core Requirements to receive training.
Performance Measures Funds allocated to adhere to compliance Submission of annual Monitoring Report
Fiscal Year Formula Grant Funds ($) State/Local/Private Funds ($) Total ($) 2009 $30,000.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 2010 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 2011 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 Expected Number of Subgrants: 0
108 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
PROGRAM AREA: Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders
STANDARD PROGRAM AREA: 08 STATE PROGRAM DESIGNATOR: 08 Problem Statement: Maintaining compliance with DSO requirements of the Act, as amended, is critical for continued Formula Grants program compliance and juvenile justice system improvement.
Goal 1: Maintain a system of services in areas where youth are at risk for being held in secure facilities in violation of the DSO requirement so that youth can be housed appropriately in the community. Objective 1: Maintain a county reimbursement system for shelter care, holdover sites, and transportation as alternatives to secure custody to improve South Dakota’s compliance with the DSO requirement. Activity 1: Operate the Reimbursement Program consistent with requirements set by the Council of Juvenile Services. Goal 2: Monitor compliance with DSO requirement and provide feedback, information and support to facilities and decision-makers impacted by the DSO requirement. Objective 1: Provide information and support to decisions-makers impacting DSO. Activity 1: Collect juvenile admission information from facilities, analyze data for violations, and compile data into the Compliance Monitoring Report and submit to OJJDP. Objective 2: Increase the knowledge of staff working within the South Dakota Compliance Monitoring System in order to increase compliance with DSO Requirements. Activity 1: Provide opportunities for staff working with the JJDPA Core Requirements to receive training on DSO.
Performance Measures Funds allocated to adhere to DSO Number of programs implemented. Number of site visits conducted. Number of program youth served. Change in the number of violations of DSO
Fiscal Year Formula Grant Funds ($) State/Local/Private Funds ($) Total ($) 2009 $86,000.00 $0.00 $86,000.00 2010 $86,000.00 $0.00 $86,000.00 2011 $86,000.00 $0.00 $86,000.00 Expected Number of Subgrants: Expect that up to 30 entities would be eligible for reimbursement programs.
109 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
PROGRAM AREA: Disproportionate Minority Contact
STANDARD PROGRAM AREA: 10 STATE PROGRAM DESIGNATOR: 10 Problem Statement: Minority youth, primarily Native American youth, are over-represented at most stages of South Dakota’s juvenile justice system.
Goal 1: Decrease Disproportionate Minority Contact within the juvenile justice system through identification, assessment, intervention, evaluation, and ongoing monitoring of juvenile justice system activity. Objective 1: Financially support the implementation of the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) intervention efforts and initiatives in two communities that focus on reduction strategies for populations of minority youth that have over-representation in the juvenile justice system during State Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012. Activity 1: Local Workgroups in MSA locations develop a proposed plan for the use of DMC funding that include workgroup coordination, programs - prevention, education, school attendance, collaboration, providing services with a “No Wrong Door” policy, and programs that stress the importance of families through early education of parenting skills for current and future parents - and other DMC- related activities. Activity 2: Once the plan is approved by the Council of Juvenile Services, establish a contract between DOC and local entities to implement the local DMC intervention plan. Objective 2: Evaluate and monitor local Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) efforts and initiatives for performance and effectiveness in the two DMC intervention communities. Activity 1: Local Workgroup Coordinators to provide local updates and Performance Measures to the Department of Corrections. Activity 2: Local Workgroup Coordinators attend DMC committee meetings in a staff capacity to provide local updates. Goal 2: Increase collaboration with Native American Tribes and the state juvenile justice system in order to improve coordination and access services operated by Tribal entities including temporary custody, diversion, and treatment services instead of relying solely on existing state operated or contracted programs. Objective 2: Financially support the implementation of the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) efforts and initiatives in one community that focus on tribal collaboration and reduction strategies for populations of minority youth that have over-representation in the juvenile justice system during State Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012. Activity 1: Department of Corrections identifies locations with significant Native American overrepresentation within the juvenile justice system and notifies them that they are eligible for a competitive grant. Activity 2: Local Workgroups in eligible locations develop a plan for the use of
110 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
DMC funding that include workgroup coordination, state-tribal collaboration, intervention strategies, and other DMC-related activities. Activity 3: Once the plan is approved by the Council of Juvenile Services, Local Workgroup Coordinator in conjunction with the Local DMC Workgroup implements plans for the implementation of collaboration projects with tribal government. Goal 3: Increase education and training opportunities regarding Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC), Native American culture awareness training, and other minority issues, for juvenile justice practitioners and service providers. Objective 1: Establish the DMC Cultural Training Development Workgroup. Activity 1: Department of Corrections contact local stakeholders to identify possible trainers for the DMC Cultural Training Development Workgroup. Objective 2: Implement education and training opportunities. Activity 1: Hold planning meetings of the DMC Cultural Training Development Workgroup. Activity 2: Department of Corrections to contract with trainers for service delivery. Activity 3: Trainers develop curriculum. Activity 4: Implementation of initial training in Sioux Falls and Rapid City. Activity 5: Implementation of ongoing education and training opportunities. Objective 3: Evaluate education and training opportunities. Activity 1: Establish a contract with a researcher to educate on DMC, evaluate the implementation of the training, and make recommendations for changes and future implementation. Activity 2: Development of formative evaluation components. Activity 3: Training evaluation and future recommendations completed by researcher and presented to the DMC Cultural Training Development Workgroup. Activity 4: DMC Cultural Training Development Workgroup identifies and adjusts training plan based on necessary changes (new topics, delivery, etc.). Objective 4: Support efforts that promote education and opportunities for reducing Disproportionate Minority Contact and collaboration between state, local, and Tribal governments. Activity 1: Support holding the juvenile justice symposium that would focus on DMC and collaboration efforts. Activity 2: Hold a joint meeting/work sessions of the Disproportionate Minority Contact Committee, the three local workgroups, and the Tribal Advisory Group in conjunction with the JJ Symposium.
Performance Measures Number of programs implemented Number of program youth served. Number of agencies reporting improved data collection.
111 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Number and percent of program youth who offend or reoffend. Number and percent or program youth exhibiting desired change in behavior. Number and percent of program youth completing program requirements. Number of contributing factors determined from assessment studies. Number of contact points reporting reduction in disproportionality. Number and percent of recommendations from assessment studies implemented.
Fiscal Year Formula Grant Funds ($) State/Local/Private Funds ($) Total ($) 2009 $185,000.00 $0.00 $185,000.00 2010 $185,000.00 $0.00 $185,000.00 2011 $185,000.00 $0.00 $185,000.00 Expected Number of Subgrants: Expect approximately 8 DMC funded intervention strategies and projects.
112 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
PROGRAM AREA: Jail Removal
STANDARD PROGRAM AREA: 17 STATE PROGRAM DESIGNATOR: 17 Problem Statement: Maintaining compliance with jail removal requirements of the Act, as amended, is critical for continued Formula Grant s program compliance and juvenile justice system improvement. Goal 1: Maintain a system of services in areas where children are at risk of being held in jails in violation of the jail removal requirement so that youth can be housed appropriately in the community. Objective 1: Maintain a county reimbursement system for detention, shelter care, holdover sites, and transportation as alternatives to secure custody to improve South Dakota’s compliance with the jail removal requirement. Activity 1: Operate the Reimbursement Program consistent with requirements set by the Council of Juvenile Services. Goal 2: Monitor compliance with jail removal requirement and provide feedback, information and support to facilities and decision-makers impacted by the jail removal requirement. Objective 1: Provide information and support to decisions makers impacting jail removal. Activity 1: Collect juvenile admission information from facilities, analyze data for violations, and compile data into the Compliance Monitoring Report and submit to OJJDP. Objective 2: Increase the knowledge of staff working within the South Dakota Compliance Monitoring System in order to increase compliance with jail removal requirements. Activity 1: Provide opportunities for staff working with the JJDPA Core Requirements to receive training on jail removal.
Performance Measures Funds allocated to adhere to jail removal Number of programs implemented Number of program youth served. Change in the number of violations of jail removal
Fiscal Year Formula Grant Funds ($) State/Local/Private Funds ($) Total ($) 2009 $86,000.00 $0.00 $86,000.00 2010 $86,000.00 $0.00 $86,000.00 2011 $86,000.00 $0.00 $86,000.00 Expected Number of Subgrants: Up to 30 entities would be eligible for reimbursement programs.
113 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
PROGRAM AREA: Native American Programs
STANDARD PROGRAM AREA: 22 STATE PROGRAM DESIGNATOR: 22 Problem Statement: Native American Tribal juvenile justice programs lack the resources to address the needs of youth coming before the Tribal courts.
Goal 1: Through a collaborative state-local-tribal governmental effort, utilize Native American Programs funding to support the development, implementation, and maintenance of juvenile justice programs both on and off the reservations. Objective 1: Improve planning and development of Native American Programs. Activity 1: Hold Tribal Advisory Group meetings in order to assess the needs of Native American youth in the state and Tribal justice systems; document the exiting services to meet those needs; identify barriers that restrict access to these services; identify service gaps; and develop, implement, and evaluate programs to address the barriers and service gaps to help guide decisions relating to Ttribal juvenile justice programs. Activity 2: Compile needs and services inventories and submit to the Council of Juvenile Services for consideration in the development of Native American programs. Objective 2: Develop and begin implementation of culturally specific juvenile justice programs on and off the reservations that meet the needs of Native American youth in the justice systems. Activity 1: SAG subgrants Native American Programs funding for juvenile justice programs based on results and analysis of needs and services inventories. Activity 2: Conduct ongoing monitoring and program evaluations on subgrants. Activity 3: Advocate for the development of a stable funding stream for Tribal juvenile justice programs.
Performance Measures Number of planning activities conducted. Number of program youth served. Number and percent of program youth completing program requirements. Number and percent of program youth that offend or re-offend. Number of program youth exhibiting desired change in targeted behaviors (substance use, antisocial behavior, family relationships, and social competencies). Number of service hours completed.
Fiscal Year Formula Grant Funds ($) State/Local/Private Funds ($) Total ($) 2009 $75,000.00 $0.00 $75,000.00 2010 $75,000.00 $0.00 $75,000.00 2011 $75,000.00 $0.00 $75,000.00 Expected Number of Subgrants: Expect up to 3 Native American projects.
114 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
PROGRAM AREA: Separation
STANDARD PROGRAM AREA: 28 STATE PROGRAM DESIGNATOR: 28 Problem Statement: Maintaining compliance with sight and sound separation requirements of the Act, as amended, is critical for continued Formula Grant s program compliance and juvenile justice system improvement. Goal 1: Maintain a system of services in areas where youth are at risk for being held in secure facilities in violation of the separation requirement so that youth can be housed appropriately in the community. Objective 1: Maintain a county reimbursement system for shelter care, holdover sites, and transportation as alternatives to secure custody to improve South Dakota’s compliance with the separation requirement. Activity 1: Operate the Reimbursement Program consistent with requirements set by the Council of Juvenile Services. Goal 2: Monitor compliance with separation requirement and provide feedback, information, and support to facilities and decision-makers impacted by the separation requirement. Objective 1: Provide information and support to decisions-makers impacting compliance with the separation requirement. Activity 1: Collect juvenile admission information from facilities, analyze data for violations, and compile data into the Compliance Monitoring Report and submit to OJJDP. Objective 2: Increase the knowledge of staff working within the South Dakota Compliance Monitoring System in order to increase compliance with separation requirements. Activity 1: Provide opportunities for staff working with the JJDPA Core Requirements to receive training on separation.
Performance Measures Funds allocated to adhere to separation. Number of programs implemented. Change in the number of violations of separation.
Fiscal Year Formula Grant Funds ($) State/Local/Private Funds ($) Total ($) 2009 $43,000.00 $0.00 $43,000.00 2010 $43,000.00 $0.00 $43,000.00 2011 $43,000.00 $0.00 $43,000.00 Expected Number of Subgrants: Expect up to 30 counties as being eligible for reimbursement programs.
115 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
PROGRAM AREA: State Advisory Group Allocation
STANDARD PROGRAM AREA: 31 STATE PROGRAM DESIGNATOR: 31 Problem Statement: There is a need to fund and operate the Council of Juvenile Services to serve as the State Advisory Group in order to fulfill the responsibilities required by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, as amended, and to provide the opportunity for citizen and practitioner input in the state’s participation in the Formula Grants Program.
Goal 1: Maintain the Council of Juvenile Services as the state advisory group for the state’s participation in the Formula Grant. Objective 1: Improve planning and development of effective juvenile justice programs within South Dakota. Activity 1: Fund programs consistent with priorities as identified by the Council of Juvenile Services. Activity 2: Hold planning meetings to identify and prioritize juvenile justice problems to be address under the Formula Grant Program. Activity 3: Submit annual report and recommendations to Governor, Chief Justice, and Legislature.
Performance Measures Number of grants funded with Formula Grant funds. Number and percent of programs using evidence-based models. Number and percent of plan recommendations implemented. Number of Council of Juvenile Services meetings held. Number of committee meetings held. Submission of annual report to the governor.
Fiscal Year Formula Grant Funds ($) State/Local/Private Funds ($) Total ($) 2009 $30,000.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 2010 $30,000.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 2011 $30,000.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 Expected Number of Subgrants: 0
116 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
PROGRAM AREA: Planning and Administration
STANDARD PROGRAM AREA: 23 STATE PROGRAM DESIGNATOR: 23 Problem Statement: The Department of Corrections has been designated to provide staff support for the State’s participation in Formula Grants Programs. Goal 1: The Department of Corrections will provide staff support to Formula Grant s programs and the Council of Juvenile Services in order to meet the federal requirements and state statutory responsibilities. Objective 1: Provide staff support to the Council of Juvenile Services in order to assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities under the Formula Grants Programs and state law. Activity 1: Track planning and administration activities. Objective 2: Provide staff support for the subgrants and contract processes for the programs implemented to address DSO, jail removal, separation, DMC, Native American Programs, and System Improvement. Activity 1: Implement and evaluate programs implemented with Formula Grant Funds.
Performance Measures Funds awarded for planning and administration. Number of Council of Juvenile Services and committee meetings conducted. Number of full-time equivalents funded. Number of subgrants awarded. Average time from receipt of subgrant application to date of award.
Fiscal Year Formula Grant Funds ($) State/Local/Private Funds ($) Total ($) 2009 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $120,000.00 2010 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $120,000.00 2011 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $120,000.00 Expected Number of Subgrants: 0
117 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
PROGRAM AREA: Juvenile Justice System Improvement
STANDARD PROGRAM AREA: 19 STATE PROGRAM DESIGNATOR: 19 Problem Statement: Because South Dakota has one of the highest incarceration rates of detention per capita, there is a need to develop alternatives to detention, commitment to the Department of Corrections, or out-of-home placement. Goal 1: Decrease South Dakota’s incarceration rate by increasing awareness of juvenile justice system practitioners of South Dakota’s incarceration rate and implementing juvenile justice system improvement programs and strategies that provide for prevention and early intervention programs and alternatives to detention and commitment to the Department of Corrections. Objective 1: Access Technical Assistance to develop a plan to address South Dakota’s high juvenile incarceration rate. Activity 1: Request Technical Assistance from OJJDP Activity 2: Council, Staff and Technical Assistance Provider develop a plan to address South Dakota’s high juvenile incarceration rate. Objective 2: Increase the awareness of juvenile justice system practitioners of South Dakota’s juvenile incarceration rate, contributing factors, and possible interventions. Activity 1: Develop a curriculum that can be used to educate juvenile justice practitioners Activity 2: Provide incarceration rate education to law enforcement, States Attorneys, Judges, Court Services Officers, and detention center and DOC staff. Objective 2: Implement alternatives to incarceration programs in at least one jurisdiction.
Activity 1: Identify jurisdiction in which to pilot an alternative to incarceration program. Activity 2: Provide training and technical assistance to identified jurisdiction to develop pilot program design. Activity 3: Implement and assess effectiveness to alternative to incarceration pilot program.
Performance Measures Number of program youth served. Number of youth completing program requirements. Average length of time between initial court appearance and disposition. Number of program youth exhibiting desired change in targeted behaviors (substance use, antisocial behavior, and family relationships). Formula Grant funds awarded for Juvenile Justice System Improvement. Number of programs implemented for Juvenile Justice System Improvement.
118 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Fiscal Year Formula Grant Funds ($) State/Local/Private Funds ($) Total ($) 2009 $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2010 $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2011 $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 Expected Number of Subgrants: 1 System Improvement subgrant
119 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
8 Subgrant Award Assurances Pursuant to Section 223(a)(21)(A) and (B) of the JJDP Act, South Dakota will to the greatest extent practicable, give priority in funding to evidence-based programs and activities. In the application process, the Council of Juvenile Services will require programs and activities that are evidence-based to indicate such. The application packet will contain information on OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide and Database to assist potential applicants in the development of their program.
Subgrants will be awarded for no more than twelve months at any given time, but subgrantees will be given the opportunity to re-apply if funding is available. This would ensure that only those programs that are successful and achieved substantial success in meeting the goals specified in their original subgrant applications are being funded. Subgrant success would be analyzed through quarterly performance reports, site visits and the reimbursement process.
120 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
9 SAG Membership COUNCIL of JUVENILE SERVICES State of South Dakota F/T Youth Date of Date of Term Name Representation Residence Govt. Member Appointment Reappointment Expiration 1. Virgena Wieseler D X 9/26/06 6/30/09 Pierre, SD 2. Joanna Vitek C, J X 9/29/06 6/30/09 Watertown, SD 3. Nancy Allard C X 9/26/06 6/30/09 Pierre, SD 4. Tanner Starr Y X 1/5/09 6/30/09 Watertown, SD 5. Sheriff Mike Leidholt A, B, C X 6/6/03 9/28/06 6/30/09 Pierre, SD 6. Judge Janine Kern C X 6/6/03 10/11/06 6/30/09 Rapid City, SD 7. Dr. Susan Randall E, F 6/16/03 10/12/06 6/30/09 Sioux Falls, SD 8. Doug Herrmann C X 6/16/03 10/11/06 6/30/09 Rapid City, SD 9. Jason Goette Y X 6/26/07 6/30/10 Aberdeen, SD 10. Grant Walker C 10/3/03 6/26/07 6/30/10 Selby, SD 11. Beth O’Toole E 10/7/04 6/25/07 6/30/10 Sioux Falls, SD 12. Dr. JC Chambers G, J, I 6/6/03 6/27/07 6/30/10 Sioux Falls, SD 13. Judge Karen Jeffries C 9/28/05 6/28/07 6/30/10 Eagle Butte, SD 14. Ella Rae Stone G 9/29/05 6/25/07 6/30/10 Lake Andes, SD 15. Aaron McGowan C 8/14/08 6/30/11 Sioux Falls, SD 16. Kaylee DeNeui Y X 8/14/05 6/30/11 Sioux Falls, SD 17. Elizabeth Heidelberger Y X 6/26/07 8/14/08 6/30/11 Rapid City, SD 18. Carol Twedt A, B 6/6/03 8/14/08 6/30/11 Sioux Falls, SD 19. Gib Sudbeck D X 6/9/03 8/15/08 6/30/11 Pierre, SD 20. Victor Erlacher D, J 4/20/05 8/15/08 6/30/11 Arlington, SD
A. Locally elected officials B. Representatives of units of local government C. Representatives of law enforcement and juvenile justice agencies (law enforcement, corrections or probation, judges, attorneys) D. Representatives of public delinquency or treatment agencies (welfare, social services, mental health, education, special education, youth services) E. Representatives of private organizations including those with special family focus, those representing parents, those concerned with prevention and treatment, those concerned with neglected and dependent children, those concerned with quality juvenile justice, education, or social services F. Representatives of organizations which use volunteers G. Representatives of community based prevention and treatment programs H. Representatives of businesses employing youth I. Youth workers involved with alternative youth programs J. Persons with special experience/competence in addressing problems of the family, school violence/vandalism and learning disabilities Y. Youth Appointments - 4 members
The SAG serves as the supervisory or advisory board.
121 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
10 Staff of the JJDP Formula Grants Program
A Organizational Chart The following chart is an organizational layout of the Department of Corrections as it relates to the implementation of grants received by the department.
Department of Corrections
Secretary of Corrections Tim Reisch
Deputy Secretary Director of Director of Director of Director of Director of Laurie Feiler Juvenile Services Grants & Research Prison Operations Operations Community Service Doug Herrmann Kevin McLain Doug Weber Scott Bollinger Darwin Weeldreyer
Council of Juvenile Services
Juvenile Justice Specialist Jodi Kirschenman
Compliance & DMC Coordinator Joy Erlenbusch
Corrections Specialist Robyn Seibel
Criminal Justice Intern
B Grants Administered The following information pertains to the programs administered by the designated state agency:
122 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GRANTS Grant Award Project Start Date End Date Extension to: Amount 2005JPFX0039 FY05 Title 5 10/01/2004 09/30/2007 03/31/2009 $100,000.00 2006JFFX013 FY06 JJDPA Formula 10/01/2005 09/30/2008 9/30/2009 $600,000.00 2006JPFX0023 FY06 Title 5 10/01/2005 09/30/2008 9/30/2009 $56,250.00 2006JBFX0004 FY06 JABG 06/01/2006 05/31/2009 $278,400.00 2007JFFX0015 FY07 JJDPA 10/01/2006 09/30/2009 $600,000.00 2007JPFX0014 FY07 Title V 10/01/2006 09/30/2009 $75,250.00 2007JBFX0057 FY07 JABG 06/01/2007 05/31/2010 $275,335.00 2008JPFX0048 FY08 JJDPA Formula 10/1/2007 9/30/2010 $600,000.00 2008JPFX0048 FY08 Title V 10/1/2007 9/30/2010 $48,360.00 2008JBFX0036 FY08 JABG 6/1/2008 5/31/2011 $293,200.00
C Staffing Plan The following table provides information about staff time designated for the JJDP program. Staff Funding Source / Percentage of Time Devoted Title II Part B Formula Administration/50% Kevin McLain (50% time) General Funds Match/50% Title II Part B Formula Administration/50% Jodi Kirschenman (80% time) General Funds Match/50% Title II Part B Formula Compliance/50% Joy Erlenbusch (50% Compliance/ 50% DMC) Title II Part B Formula DMC/50% Title II Part B Formula Compliance/50% Intern Position (50% Compliance/ 50% DMC) Title II Part B Formula DMC/50%
D Staff Duties The following is a description of the staffing duties:
Kevin McLain – Director of Grants and Research Manage State’s participation in JJDP Formula Grants Program; Supervise Juvenile Justice Specialist, Compliance Monitor-DMC Coordinator and Intern; Oversee collocation approval process; Draft subgrant and reimbursement contracts; Provide final approval on all reimbursement requests and other expenditure of funds; Oversee development of DMC report; Ensure compliance monitoring system and reports meet Act and Formula Grant requirements.
123 2009-2011 Formula Grants Program Three Year Plan South Dakota
Jodi Kirschenman, Corrections Program Specialist Serve as State’s Juvenile Justice Specialist; Draft Formula Grants Application and Three-Year Plan; Conduct all Grants Management System processes and complete all required DOJ reports; Conduct initial review of subgrant and contract reimbursement requests; Coordinate JABG Programs and Title V Programs.
Joy Erlenbusch, Compliance Monitor and DMC Coordinator Serve as Compliance Monitoring Coordinator including providing support to Compliance Monitoring System including data system, data collection, drafting plans, manuals, and reports; Serve as DMC Coordinator including providing support for data collection and reports.
To be determined, Criminal Justice Intern Provide support to the Council of Juvenile Services and Committees; Provide support to the Compliance Monitoring System; Provide support for the DMC process; Help conduct facility visits.
Jackie Hanson, Senior Accountant Maintenance of accounts; Generate warrants; Draw down funds from DOJ; Complete fiscal reports.
124